This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
40 phone-calls changed the world that day---but were they real? The U.S. government’s amazing 9/11 evidence says not.
By Rowland Morgan © 2010 All Rights Reserved
EPIGRAPH All times in this book are given in Babylonian mathematics (based on 60), which was invented by Iraqis some 10,000 years before the founding of the United States of America.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank David Ray Griffin for suggesting this work, Ian Woods and Terry Burrows for prompting the writing of it, and Elizabeth Woodworth, Wayne Prante, Ian Henshall, Robin Hordon, Mark Gaffney, Christopher Bollyn for their contributions. The author acknowledges the dedicated work of Co-operativeResearch.org in assembling its 9/11 timeline, extracts from which are used here in the public interest.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................... THE 9/11 IN-FLIGHT PHONE CALLS ..................... VOICES FROM FLIGHT 77 .............................. VOICES FROM FLIGHT 11 ............................ 88 VOICES FROM FLIGHT 175 .......................... 149 VOICES FROM FLIGHT 93 ........................... 191 CONCLUSION ...................................... 269
4 FRONTISPIECE: The call evidence (adapted by the author).
AT&T Claircom. AT&T supplies Pentagon telecoms.
By 2008, the official story of 9/11 was imploding. An authoritative study of the 9/11 Commission process showed that Commission director Philip Zelikow had been a key White House associate in promoting post-9/11 wars and had collaborated with top Bush aide Karl Rove during the Commission’s inquiry.1 Furthermore, the Commission cochairs, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane, in a New York Times article denounced the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) for obstructing their inquiry and for destroying interrogation records.2 It was shown that nearly all the Commission’s evidence of hijacker activities around time of the 9/11 events had come from interrogations that involved physical torture. “NBC News analysis shows 441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations [involving torture]. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA. The second round of interrogations sought by the Commission involved more than 30 separate interrogation sessions.”3
6 Knowledge that all the relevant interrogations about 9/11 hjackers involved severe physical torture such as waterboarding crucially tainted the whole official story of hijacker involvement, for as Shakespeare wrote: “I fear you speak upon the rack, Where men enforced do speak anything.”4 This extraordinary shift brought the status of the 9/11 events into collision with completely unrelated evidence of hijackers arising from about 40 telephone calls allegedly made from the rogue aircraft in question, all of which made mention of the presence of hijackers. These unprecedented in-flight telephone calls received extensive coverage in the U.S. mass media, featuring a chorus of women witnesses who claimed to have received calls from their loved ones. In particular, a stream of dozens of calls from the downed aircraft, Flight 93, formed the narrative of a passenger revolt that passed into Pentagon warmaking propaganda for the assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq. We now face massive cognitive dissonance between the destruction of the official story of hijackers, and the stream of reported distress telephone calls, all of which told of hijackers aboard the rogue aircraft. The telephone calls were essentially the last pillar left standing in the collapsing edifice of the U.S. administration’s attribution of the 9/11 events to fanatical foreign attackers. As it happened, the U.S.
7 government had provided comprehensive details of the telephone calls in its evidence to the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. They were enclosed in little-noticed electronic files, and this is an examination of that revealing evidence. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), working out of the Department of Justice, where the evidence was prepared, backed off nearly all the Flight 93 cell-phone calls,5 the possibility of some cellular calls on other flights carefully was left open by vagueness and deniability. The evidence fudged the data, with phone numbers not given, and no computer data supplied that would have automatically been captured by Claircom or Airfone, the phone providers, had they in fact been seatback phone calls. Other voices heard ostensibly via seatback phones (although attributed to cell phones at the time) simulated cell phone calls by their brevity and by being cut off abruptly.6 The telephone data contained bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware: • Two 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit
Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S.
8 Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed “hijackers” armed with “cardboard-cutters” aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon. • The 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd
Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan “Let’s Roll”, could not have occurred. The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second. Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. What’s more, internal evidence indicated that the evidence in these two vital calls had been fabricated with criminal intent in order to nod at the official story while evading a minimum 30-month prison sentence from the U.S. district court for obstruction of justice.7 Furthermore, the demolition of these two famous phone calls meant that they had been faked during the events, opening up the possibility that other calls, too, had been fraudulent. All the calls supposedly had mentioned hijackers
9 or a hijacking, so the very existence of hijackers then came into question. It was not just U.S. federal prosecutors Robert Spencer, David Novak and David Raskin who were implicated. The trial evidence had been arranged at the highest levels. “These are political decisions,” [said] John Zwerling, a criminal defense attorney in Alexandria, Va. “The shots are being called at the very highest level of our government -the president, the vice president, and the attorney general. The prosecutors have to march to their orders, and whether or not they believe in it is irrelevant.”8 Even the venue of the trial was political: “after the [9/11] attacks [sic], the Justice Department decided to make the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia the hub of terrorism prosecutions. There were several reasons for the choice. Virginia juries had a reputation for being sympathetic to prosecutors, the federal court in Alexandria was known for quickly moving cases through its ‘rocket docket,’ and Alexandria lay just across the Potomac from Washington -- where prosecutors would have easy access to their colleagues at Main Justice and the myriad federal agencies that would become involved in any trial.”9
10 Top Department of Justice (DOJ) officials had been involved in constructing the telephone evidence. “Moussaoui's December 2001 indictment was signed by three officials representing each DOJ arm involved. There was Paul McNulty, the Eastern District of Virginia's new and politically connected Republican U.S. Attorney (who has since been nominated to the DOJ's No. 2 spot); Mary Jo White, the outgoing Clinton-era U.S. Attorney in New York whose office had overseen the first World Trade Center bombing and East African embassy bombings [sic]; and Michael Chertoff, the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice in Washington and a former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey [later head of the vast Homeland Security department]. McNulty has appeared in the courtroom at key stages of the case.”10 In addition to the manipulation of the official 9/11 story by lawyers, earlier the U.S. mass-media had spun the array of in-flight 9/11 cellular telephone calls so comprehensively that even U.S. prosecutor Raskin believed that they had occurred. He expounded them to the jury, and the Associated Press passed on his words to the world.11 Yet his Moussaoui trial evidence proved that many of the cellphone calls he brandished had not taken place. The U.S.
11 prosecutor was deluded and the government’s conspiracy theory lay in shreds on the court-room floor.12 This was in spite of the showmanship used at the trial. For example, prosecutors played to the jury the cockpit voice recording (CVR) alleged to have been retrieved from the mangled and buried wreckage of Flight 93 (that nobody outside the secret state13 had seen). Passenger voices were heard shouting outside the cockpit (although normally only the pilots’ voices were recorded). The drama of shouting pilots and their chillingly cool rogue replacements was played out on high-tech equipment: “As jurors heard the cockpit recording Wednesday, they watched a color video showing a transcript, synchronized with the voices and the plane's instrument readings of its speed, altitude, pitch and headings.” There was no mention of the culminating eight minutes of the recording transcript that were mostly marked “unintelligible”. No mention of the original view that the CVR recording solved nothing.14 No one explained to the jury how Flight 93’s rogue pilot could have obtained permission from Reagan International airport air-traffic controllers to change the flight plan and fly towards Washington D.C.15 The telephone evidence ruined all the prosecution’s video razz-a-matazz. As 9/11 sceptic David Ray Griffin had written: “If even one of [the] essential claims [in the
12 official story] is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt. Critics do not need to show the falsity of every essential element in the official account; they need to show only the falsity of one such element.”16 From the destruction of the cellular telephone calls, through the denial of the Olson phone calls, to the demolition of the Beamer ‘Let’s Roll’ call, the evidence knocked the official story flying. No one reasonably could deny any more that the ‘war on terror’ was based on fabrications: U.S. government evidence, presented in court, proved it. Furthermore, the Moussaoui phone call evidence rested on its own authority. It gave no references for its telephone data. Nowhere is it written: “phone data supplied by Verizon Airfone Inc.” or “phone data from AT&T Claircom Inc.”. Clearly, the department of Justice was not able to provide sources for its supposedly authoritative data because of the internal contradictions that exist within its files. Amazingly, the enormously powerful U.S. mind-control media corporations that had petitioned for the release of the evidence completely ignored the explosive telephone information it contained.
Flight 77: BARBARA OLSON
CAPTION: The Barbara Olson call was a news sensation, the first eye-witness account of hijackers aboard the rogue flights, conveyed by the distinguished recipient of two cell-phone calls from her at the department of Justice itself.
14 After the report of his call (on ABC TV News on the 14th Sept 2001, for example), apart from a later appearance on Larry King Live, Solicitor-General Ted Olson was rarely heard from again in the U.S.A. An interview he gave in 2002 to the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph newspaper did not feature prominently in the U.S. Reporter Toby Harnden wrote his
exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” which appeared in the U.K. on March 5, 2002, thereafter to be renamed and syndicated as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.17 That story quoted Olson saying: • “She [Barbara] had trouble getting through,
because she wasn't using her cell phone - she was using the phone in the passengers' seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was
calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy. . . She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’”. So, Olson abandoned the cell phone calls claim that CNN and ABC had promoted. Presumably learning later that such calls were unfeasible, he duly converted them into seatback telephone calls18, but this immediately raised a problem, because without a credit card, no call could be initiated on
15 a Claircom seatback phone, and if she had borrowed a card, Barbara Olson would no longer have needed to make the collect calls her husband described, just one of which would have been incredible on that day at that particular time anyway, something he acknowledged with his “never very easy” admission, let alone two. (Furthermore, the transaction would be on record: every scrap of credit information is all archived in a huge data bank located outside of Bethesda, Maryland.19) Olson’s original assertion had come in the report issued by CNN, part of $38bn-a-year AOL-Time-Warner20 (as it was then), just a few hours after his bereavement. Citing Olson indirectly, it megaphoned the Barbara Olson voice’s assertion that it had called on a cell phone, even though such a call would have been an impossible feat in 2001 because no pico-cell technology yet had been installed on American Airlines jets to facilitate their use.21 Invented in Israel, pico-cells started being introduced by airlines after a formal demonstration in 2004: • There are many inconveniences to air travel.
But if you want to get someplace fast, you'll put up with almost anything - the cramped seats, the big guy sitting next to you, the baby crying in front of you, and - the food.
16 But one of the biggest sacrifices - especially in today's fast-paced environment - of not being able to use your cell phone, is quickly becoming history thanks to an Israeli-developed system which enables in-flight cell phone use. American-based pioneer and world leader in CDMA technology, Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) and its subsidiary Qualcomm Israel teamed with American Airlines last summer to demonstrate satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service. And after two years of development by Qualcomm Israel, American and Qualcomm officials circled the West Texas skies this past summer making calls from their cell phones in a flight authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to test the technology's safety and transmission quality.22
Low altitude, the explanation for 9/11 cell phone calls offered by cultist debunkers, was not an issue in 2001 because even at low altitude a speeding plane would scramble the transfer process between any scattered cellular towers that might have been available in the remote area of the Allegheny mountains where Flight 77 ostensibly was lost to air-traffic controllers.
17 A cell-phone call into Washington D.C. from Flight 77 was doubly problematic, because a cell-phone black-out in the Washington area had occurred following the explosions at the World Trade Center in New York, at about the time that Mrs. Olson was supposed to have called her husband. None other than George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, reported the breakdown in his autobiographical book At The Center of the Storm (Harper Collins 2007). When he learned of the north tower plane collision while having a “business breakfast”, he rushed back to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, and had trouble making calls on his secure phone, meaning he was “essentially… in a communications blackout between the St. Regis and Langley, the longest twelve minutes of my life.” He only learned that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center when he arrived. Four years later, the 9/11 Commission addressed the question of these problematic Olson calls, but stumbled at the first hurdle by asserting that Ms. Olson had called an unknown number. Here’s the gobbledygook the Commission’s 60 lawyers offered, in partnership with the self-described “biggest FBI investigation in history”: • The records available for the phone calls
from American 77 do not allow for a determination of
18 which of four “connected calls to unknown number” represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ (Dept. of Justice) believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May’s parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds: 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds, and 9:30:34 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, “American Airlines Telephone Usage,” Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001; AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.23 (Emphasis added.) This extraordinary official digression was represented in the 2006 Moussaoui evidence as a file duly showing four calls from “unknown callers” who obtained connections to “unknown numbers”. However, authorities evidently no longer believed the calls “represent[ed] communications between
19 Barbara Olson and her husband’s office”, because another call, single and unconnected, was ascribed to her instead.
CAPTION: The calls derived from American Airlines had their own file in the evidence, but the authorities no longer ascribed any of them to Barbara Olson. A fifth call consisting only of an “on button pressed” was implicitly ascribed to a cellular telephone, but the others were unattributed. -------------------------------------------------------
20 We can only assume from these “unknown callers” connecting to “unknown numbers” that the calls somehow scrambled the cellular system and were decipherable only as transmissions that caused measurable interference but no data. However, such an assumption would make nonsense of the “belief” of the F.B.I. and the department of Justice that all four represented calls from Barbara Olson, two of which had made coherent connections that involved two-way verbal communications. Both such calls inherently would not have scrambled the cellular system and would have been logged by the operations software system (OSS) of AT&T Aircom or a cellular service provider. The “unknown callers” explanation raised other problems, among them: • American Airlines was not in the telecoms
business and was not a credible source for telephone OSS (Operations Support System) data; • Several top military-industrial personalities
allegedly were aboard Flight 77, many of whom would have carried cell phones and used them if they had worked, not to speak of the dozens of other passengers and cabin crew. • The idea that Barbara Olson succeeded in
reaching the besieged Department of Justice switchboard
21 during the biggest crisis of the U.S.A.’s modern era, not twice as her husband reported, but four times, stretched credulity to breaking point and destroyed the credibility of the unnamed managers at the F.B.I. and the D.O.J. • While pretending to set the record straight,
the 9/11 Commission avoided naming which type of telephone was used. • The F.B.I. and the department of Justice
“canvassed” Ted Olson, who “indicated” that he had received a call from his wife.
CAPTION: The Kean/Zelikow report in 2004 did not identify the type of phone used and pretended not to know which of four “connected calls to unknown numbers” were made by Barbara Olson, “although the FBI and the DOJ [Dept of Justice] believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office”. The department of Justice’s evidence to the 2006 Moussaoui trial, by contrast, said Olson made only one attempted call to the department, which failed. ………………………………………………………………………….
The 9/11 Commission’s 40-page thriller-like legend at the opening of its report gave a detailed account of the Olson telephone calls, but not detailed enough to identify the type of phone used. In this it agreed with the content of the original CNN report published on September 11th 2001, which also failed to identify the phone, and went as follows:
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara
Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives
23 and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft. • Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson
reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off.24
Note that both calls were brief and were interrupted, in line with the perceived nature of cell phone calls made from cruising aircraft. Although this perception was a delusion, and cell phone calls from cruising jetliners were not possible in 2001, the nature of the calls --- brief and
24 interrupted --- validated their attribution to cell phones by Ted Olson, the F.B.I., CNN and the rest of the mass media.25
25 CAPTION: On page nine of the Kean/Zelikow report stood Barbara Olson’s phone calls from Flight 77. The text failed to identify the type of telephone used. ----------------------------------------------------
After getting saturation coverage in the immediate wake of the events,26 the Olson calls went on to become a key component of the 9/11 legend. An example is to be found in the popular contributor-edited on-line reference work Wikipedia, which under the heading Flight 77 stated recently: • Passenger Barbara K. Olson called her
husband, United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson, at the Department of Justice twice to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were held in the back of the plane. After the first call was cut off Theodore Olson contacted the command center at the Department of Justice and tried unsuccessfully to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft. Olson called her husband back and asked him “What should I tell the pilot?”.27 ----------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: The reader-edited on-line reference work, Wikipedia, faithfully recorded the Olson calls but failed to identify the instrument used. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Here we see the content of the calls typically being reproduced in direct speech, although the call was only single-source hearsay, related by her husband and first reported by CNN. Thus the Barbara Olson calls, sourced at the very highest level of the U.S. judiciary, became a foundation stone of the attribution of the 9/11 plane crashes to
27 suicidal hijackers, Islamic radicals who hated America’s freedoms, using box-cutters (or cardboard cutters). So it was amazing when the U.S. department of Justice abandoned the calls, even if it did so surreptitiously, never drawing it to the attention of the Moussaoui jury. The government’s evidence file showed that Olson had attempted to call her second husband at the department of justice just once, at nearly 09:19, but failed to connect.
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The U.S. government’s Moussaoui trial evidence admitted that Barbara Olson never called her husband at the department of Justice. This shattered the long-standing fabrication of her calls blaming hijackers with box-cutters, and branded the (then) U.S. Solicitor-General Theodore Olson both a liar (the collect calls) and the dupe of forged phone calls, and revealed the hand of high-level perpetrators manipulating the 9/11 events.
29 The Barbara Olson call had swayed a bewildered America, convincing the nation that Islamic hijackers had pulled off the hijackings, and not the obvious culprits with the required power, personnel, money and equipment: namely the military-industrial complex and its servants in politics and the media28. And, equally critically for the plotters, the call had convinced the world that Afghan cave-dwellers had done it with “cardboard cutters”, the arguably legal weapons that saved the two airlines (United and American) from paying out massive damages to their customers’ and employees’ relatives for negligence in allowing lethal weapons aboard. At the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the U.S. department of Justice quietly abandoned the four “unknown caller” calls that they had hitherto ascribed to Barbara Olson. The conclusion was inescapable: Olson had either invented the calls or plotters behind the scenes faked them and duped him. EVIDENCE TAMPERING IN THE OLSON FILE How reliable was the Barbara Olson evidence file delivered by the Department of Justice at the 2001 Moussaoui trial? It destroyed the Olson call, best-sourced of the 9/11 phone calls, and apparently proved that the voice had been forged, but the Olson file itself presented a problem qua evidence. Unlike most of the files that gave details of
30 individuals’ phone calls, it did not provide the row number of the seatback phone that might have been used by Barbara Olson, although the evidence does not attribute the call to either seatback or cellular phone. (In fact, none of the American Airlines calls were sourced to seat row numbers, either aboard Flight 77 or Flight 11.) Although no sourcing substantiation was offered for any of the telephone evidence files, the row numbers of seatback phones used, along with the credit card ID data swiped, would have been available to the department of Justice and the F.B.I. from AT&T Claircom in its OSS data.29 Nothing was hidden from the providers of the telephones, including the number of the credit card that Barbara Olson must have swiped through the card slot if she used a seatback phone -- even though the use of such a credit card would have obviated the need for collect calls as recounted by Ted Olson. And yet, for some reason, the row number of the seatback phone is missing. What could the reason be? The likely answer is the story given by the call’s alleged recipient, Ted Olson. He originally reported his third wife’s calls as made from a cellular telephone,
something his wife’s voice may have told him during forged calls. The mass-media proliferated Olson’s account, which told of very short calls (made even shorter if we include
31 the presumed connection period through the busy exchange) and suddenly interrupted, that is to say the imagined form taken when a cellular telephone struggled to find and maintain its network anywhere from cruising altitude to about ten thousand feet (something that technology prevented occurrring with seatback phones). Olson’s later adjustment of his story, that the calls actually came collect (U.K.: reverse-charged) from a seatback phone, never properly entered the mainstream narrative in the U.S.A., so the cellphone calls remained planted in the public imagination. Nor did the 9/11 Commission do anything to dispel them, failing as it did to commit to either type of call in its data, in other words allowing the possibility of a cell-phone call. The U.S. government evidence at the Moussaoui trial followed exactly the same path, failing to commit to either form of telephone call, so that a cell phone call remained possible, but also deniable. In this sense, the evidence accorded perfectly with Ted Olson’s original story in all respects except the actual connection. The U.S. government’s new evidence ultimately failed to endorse the calls, but it asserted nevertheless that Barbara Olson had made a call. She had made only one, to be sure, and not the four that American Airlines, the department of Justice and the 9/11 Commission formerly “believed” she had
32 made, but at least she had made a call. Furthermore, the call had been made to the department of Justice. Ms. Olson the loyal wife and dedicated patriot had called her distinguished husband where he sat at the right hand of the U.S. Supreme Court. Clearly, she had attempted to alert him. The effort was there. The number had been dialed. The call had, however, been “unconnected”. What is an unconnected call? Usually such a call is one that is automatically diverted by the telecoms provider’s computer, for example to a scheduling service that allows the caller to schedule a call to a number that was unavailable or busy at the time the caller called. (Some cellular telephone providers charge for such calls.) Either that, or an “unconnected” call would be a call that simply found a number busy and was nevertheless registered as incoming by the telecoms provider’s computer. So, according to the Moussaoui trial evidence, as presumably (but not explicitly) informed by AT&T Claircom, American Airlines’ seatback phone provider, someone tried to call the department of Justice from Flight 77. We know that the call could not have been made by cell phone, because it would not have been able to reach via its ground network the PABX exchange at Justice from any altitude over about 8,000 to 10,000 feet. However, we are not provided with a row
33 number for the seatback phone used, a reference that is provided in most of the files for calls made aboard Flights 93 and 175, which used Verizon Airfones, being United Airlines aircraft. This absence of seat row references could be ascribed to an ongoing controversy about whether Flight 77 was equipped with working seatback phones. Sceptics had produced hard evidence that raised the probability that Flight 77, ostensibly an American Airlines Boeing 757, did not offer in-flight seatback phones as a service to customers. The company’s own information indicated that they had been ordered deactivated during the winter of 2000-2001. David Ray Griffin recently wrote: “A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out-calls during the terrorist attack.”30 Whether they actually were deactivated in compliance with the order was nevertheless disputed by 9/11 believers.
34 Professional pilot Rob Balsamo received from an informant a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual dated January 28, 2001. The page records that the AT&T Claircom system for American’s 757 fleet had been ordered deactivated by that date, citing the order number. According to the manual, in other words, the onboard phones were to have been taken out of service at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11. A later document produced on the internet appeared to challenge this one, but other evidence combined to outweigh it. The reader should consult the Griffin/Balsamo article for ongoing details, but the page from the manual appears to be undeniable, with its emphatic opening statement: “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by [order number],” and the date entry at bottom right. Both are highlighted.
CAPTION: American’s 757 fleet mainenance manual shows seatback phones being deactivated before 9/11.32 -------------------------------------------------------
Apparently confused about how to present this erstwhile world-famous phone-call without proving that they had fabricated evidence and thereby risking going to prison for two years, U.S. prosecutors selected the absolute minimum tenable claim. Ms. Olson had attempted to make a connection, and that’s all. They did not assign the phone to a seat number, as they did with most of the other alleged calls, and nor did they commit to it being either a Claircom seatback or a cell phone call. It was a “sort of” call that the U.S. department of justice thought would get them through without being arrested by Judge Brinkema’s sherrifs. The prosecutors backed off a seatback phone call (by not giving a seat row number), thereby getting out of the problem of whether there were seatback phones fitted in the aircraft. They settled for implying an unconnected cell phone call. The Olson story would have to be struck from the legend, admittedly, but the media could fix that with another of their egregious and numerous cover-ups. Still, the fudging of the Olson evidence file remained a dangerous piece of chicanery, and some of the prosecutors who, unlike prosecutor Mr. David Raskin, had actually perused the evidence they presented, must have been sweating when they put it before the American people.33
While electronically faking (or ‘spoofing’) a caller ID number was not a crime in 2001, rigging OSS information was. Under Section 2701 of the U.S. Federal Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act, unlawfully accessing a telephone exchange or tampering with telecoms OSS was punishable by five to ten years in prison.34 Accessing AT&T Claircom’s data to forge the registering of a telephone call was thus a serious crime, and one that the U.S. prosecution in the Moussaoui trial indicated had been committed on 9/11 --- but not by the accused mental case, Z. Moussaoui. The prosecutors, or at least those working on the case behind the scenes, must have been aware of the criminal implication of the evidence, which did not point towards Moussaoui but towards the U.S. military-industrial machine and its compliant administration. If Barbara Olson had never made contact with the department of Justice, then what phone calls did the solicitor general of the United States hear? Others witnessed the calls coming in, for example Ted Olson’s aide Helen Voss, who was interviewed about the calls by the F.B.I. and the 9/11 Commission. An account of the incoming calls was published a few days after the 9/11
38 events. Tony Mauro, of the on-line journal, New York Lawyer, failed to name the “someone” who took the original call, but confirmed that Ms. Olson “called on her cell phone from aboard the jet”. • It was just as the World Trade Center attacks
were unfolding that someone in the solicitor general’s office took a phone call from Barbara Olson. Ted Olson’s longtime assistant, Helen Voss, raced into the SG’s [solicitor general’s] office to tell him that Barbara was on the line, sounding panicked. He picked up the phone and exclaimed, ‘What, you’ve been hijacked?’ She was calling on her cell phone from aboard the jet, which had just left Dulles Airport. Voss says, ‘My heart sank.’ The call ended abruptly, but then Barbara called again, reportedly asking her husband, ‘What should I tell the pilot?’ ... The pilot, along with passengers, had apparently been herded into the back of the plane.35 This report from the very scene of the calls’ reception, citing another witness besides Ted Olson, indicated that calls did, in fact, come in from a voice claiming to be that of Barbara Olson. The calls were very short and quickly interrupted; in other words, they assumed a form that both pretended to be cell-phone calls and that
39 was tailored to suit the needs of felons, if they were forging Ms. Olson’s voice and deceiving the call recipient. Voice forgers would have needed to plant their hijackers/atrocities information and get out quickly, to reduce to a minimum the chances of detection of their fraud by the recipient, or by Claircom surveillance technicians tracing the calls. We have heard reports from from Mr. Ted Olson and his assistant indicating that Ms. Olson called twice. We have heard from American Airlines, the F.B.I, the U.S. department of Justice and the 9/11 Commission that Ms. Olson made connected telephone calls as many as four times. We learned from the department of Justice’s telephone evidence that Barbara Olson never reached her husband from Flight 77, so we face a difficult fact: either Ted Olson invented the calls, or his wife’s famous “cardboard-cutter” calls were faked. If that was the case, apart from any other implications, felons are walking around behind the scenes who should be serving up to 10 years in federal prison. The collapse of the Olson calls, stemming as they did from the U.S. department of Justice, seat of the F.B.I., not only played havoc with the credibility of the U.S. administration, but cast an ugly shadow of doubt over the other “hijackers and atrocities” phone calls. Since hearsay evidence is not admissible in court anyway, now that the
40 most authoritative of the hearsay reports about phone calls from the rogue flights has turned out to be a fraud, truthseekers have to ask whether the rest of the distress calls ever happened. Or, assuming that the recipients genuinely did get them, whether they were faked.
FRAUD IN HIGH PLACES
The long-standing suspicion that all the 9/11 alarm phone calls were staged by teleoperators using voice simulation technology did not arise from the overheated imaginations of paranoid sceptics, but from the precedent of ruthless schemes devised by the Pentagon chiefs of staff in 1962 to win support for an invasion of Cuba, the toppling of the Castro regime, and a supposedly winnable all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the worker state that was the ultimate enemy of the plutocrats. And these were only the schemes that came out. Doubtless many more recent schemes exist, buried in the archives under the Top Secret category. A few of them have surfaced, i.e. a report by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh that U.S. V-P Richard Cheney in a 2008 White House meeting discussed “build[ing] four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy SEALs on
41 them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”36 The proposed false-flag operations for Cuba were described in the formerly top-secret Northwoods documents, first referenced by an Australian author in 1999, and later retrieved from the McNamara archives under freedom of information law by author James Bamfield
Bibliography). In some aspects, they bear an uncanny resemblance to the 9/11 events. The Northwoods plans, proposed to Defence secretary Robert McNamara by the Pentagon chief, General Lyman Lemnitzer, were an array of lethal proposals that included “hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities”: in other words, mass-murdering Americans. It proved how little American loss of life counted to power-crazed fanatics when it came to the overriding priority of launching and winning World War Three. At the time, the Pentagon was known to harbour nests of neo-Nazi Doctor Strangeloves,38 both civilian and uniformed, and little has changed since then except the identity of their enemy. Cuba then had a population of about eight million; today, the Middle East has a population of some 200 million. The great difference in the scale of the target zones meant the 9/11 stakes were
42 considerably higher, and accordingly a false-flag operation would have had to be that much more insanely ambitious. The Pentagon’s plane-swap plan for triggering war with Cuba and the Soviet Union involved loading a scheduled flight with passengers equipped with baggage and identities that seemed real, but were actually fake: the passengers would all be intelligence operatives in disguise. The aircraft, under the false livery of a genuine flight, would disappear into the skies to land covertly at a U.S. airforce base. The secret agents would disperse and resume their identities, while an identical-looking aircraft, empty of passengers and crew and guided by remote control, would enter Cuban airspace and explode. Flotsam and jetsam of the ostensible passengers would be strewn around the aircraft’s debris at sea by a team of U.S. special-forces operatives and picked up by third-party rescuers. The USA could then respond to the supposed atrocity with an invasion.
CREDIT: Graphic by the author --------------------------------------This is not a conspiracy theory: it was a proposal generated within the Pentagon by highly-experienced Machiavellians,39 veterans of high-level machinations in the Second World War and the Korean and other wars, and put to a Secretary of Defense who went on to mastermind the interminable bombings and slaughterings of the Vietnam/Cambodia conflict that ended in ignominious defeat for the Pentagon and a Congressional inquiry into the illegal activities of the CIA, with the revelation that its Operation Mockingbird had effectively controlled the U.S. mass media for at least 30 years.
44 President John Kennedy had the good sense to reject the bloodthirsty false-flag Northwoods schemes a couple of days after Lemnitzer put them to Secretary McNamara on March 13th, 1962. Kennedy immediately decided to demote the obviously dangerous Lemnitzer. The scheming warmaker duly departed for Europe in September. Just over one year after his departure, Lemnitzer the intriguer was Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and Kennedy, the elected President of the United States, was dead. Of Lemnitzer, Sourcewatch.org writes: “Prior to the
Kennedy assassination, Lemnitzer had been implicated in [Kennedy’s] investigation into extreme right-wing and anticommunist/pro-Israel hardliner connections in the Defense Department which had already forced the resignation of several Pentagon officials, including one who'd been caught handing out John Birch Society40 literature while on assignment overseas. The conclusions called for further extensive investigation of Lemnitzer to determine just how far his connections ran, but these were never carried out. This has led some to suspect a Pentagon, rather than CIA, involvement in the death of JFK.” Today, similar suspicions point to Pentagon complicity in a 9/11 false-flag operation. Lemnitzer had been involved in several deeply sinister deals made by the secret U.S. government, for example
45 NATO’s41 deployment following World War Two of covert antiCommunist terror squads (Operation Gladio
) that almost
certainly conducted hideous political atrocities such as the 1980 Bologna railway station bombing that killed 75 innocents, and the cruel kidnapping and assassination of Italian prime minister Aldo Moro, who had intended to bring the Communist party into his coalition government.43 The Gladio plot, involving hundreds, possibly thousands, of covert operatives, remained undetected for 40 years. With chief spy Alan Dulles, Lemnitzer was also closely involved in the attempt to arrange a secret anti-Communist peace deal with the Nazi government during the Hitler war. He is depicted as being connected with the Kennedy assassination in the movie JFK.44 The Pentagon’s Northwoods proposal is a key precedent for a 9/11 “inside job” analysis. A 9/11 “inside job” also could have been modelled on a more recent scheme, one supposedly conceived by roaming Arabs temporarily operating out of the Philippines. Peter Lance, in his book 1000 Years For Revenge
Filipino interrogators extracted from their arrestees “a virtual blueprint of the 9/11 attacks”. The plotters’ original so-called Bojinka plot (little more than a file in a computer at the time) was to be followed by a deliriously ambitious scheme that involved bombing a range of major
46 U.S.A. landmarks, including an unidentified nuclear power plant. Probably under torture, possibly over poolside drinks, the chief suspect had asserted, Lance further claimed, that 10 suicide pilots were already training in the U.S.A.. Why they would be covertly training in the U.S.A. when they could have trained openly in dozens of other countries, Lance did not explain. Lance’s point all along was to argue that the FBI deliberately overlooked this plot, working behind the scenes to let it happen. Another of Lance’s motives could have been that, in Mark Curtis’s words: “[e]ver since the Philippines senate refused to extend the U.S. bases agreement in 1991, the U.S. has been seeking to re-establish a permanent presence.”46 So the Philippines source is geopolitically suspect, and it is equally possible (although for authoritarian 9/11 believers unthinkable) that the intel operatives controlling the patsies on their tropical island were on Lemnitzer’s wavelength, and were the ones with the means to make such a wildly ambitious and improbable scheme happen, rather than allow it to. The latter seems all the more conceivable when one reflects that the U.S. media concealed for six years the fact that a huge doomsday command and control aircraft circled low over restricted White House airspace when the
47 Pentagon blew up,47 or ignored that Building Seven at the World Trade Center appeared to go down by controlled demolition (NIST, which studied the collapse for seven years, concluded in 2008 that it was the first steel-framed building in history to collapse by fire alone). Building Seven’s owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted using controlled demolition to destroy it on PBS television48 and major mass media outlets reported the collapse before it happened49. Meanwhile, no other organisation on earth except the Pentagon “has roughly 70 satellites in orbit, vital to such military purposes as navigation, communications, and intelligence without which the launch of unmanned Predator drone planes and other high-tech devices used in Afghanistan and Iraq would be impossible.”50 There is little doubt that the Northwoods plans were drawn up by the same outlaw clique (or secret government) whose operatives later staged the 9/11 events in an attempt to create a decisive new post-Soviet enemy for the Allied war machine. For example, mainstream media on 3rd February, 2006, reported that the glad-handing public face of the war criminals, President G.W. Bush, “considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a
48 meeting between the US President and Tony Blair”.51 This false-flag operation was openly proposed by the President in the company of his top aides and U.K. prime minister Blair. One aide had sufficient conscience to leak this cynical and amoral plan, giving us a brief glimpse of the way war criminals operate behind the scenes. Bush told Blair: “The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”52 Bush was either an utter dupe or a barefaced liar when he added that he “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups” in Iraq, an outcome that occurred promptly after the invasion as a result of pre-planned US/UK covert provocations in the wrecked country that included the systematic assassination, individual by individual, of much of Iraq’s secular intelligensia.53 A senior professor of law appearing on UK’s Channel Four news said of the leaked false-flag scheme: “That plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises... questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law.” In other words, the U.S. leadership team was no better than the Nazi gangsters who instigated a border incident to validate invading and tearing Poland apart in 1939, thereby
49 triggering World War Two. Obviously, if these mobsters considered deception to entrap the leader of a delapidated third-rate power, they would connive at far more extreme measures to deceive their own captive populations into supporting what they called the “long war”.54
When considering the possible forgery of the Olson calls, we have to remember that the telephone call is not quite as simple as it seems to us today in developed countries. It involves remote (Gr.“tele”) sound (Gr.“phone”), or conversing with someone without being physically present. That telepathic trick can be achieved only with the aid of an extensive technology base that prosthetically extends the voice into the house next-door or almost anywhere else in the developed world. A history of telephony relates that generations ago “as telephone technology became more sophisticated, understanding how the system worked became increasingly baffling for the ‘man-onthe-street’. In fact there was still resistance from some people to accept the telephone into their home, because of the gradual mechanisation of life it represented”.55 In 2001, that “gradual mechanisation” had accelerated exponentially since the 1930s, with the addition of the
50 automobile, aviation, cellular and most recently the internet telephone networks. Indeed, we have seen that the 9/11 events themselves helped millions to break through their resistance to the new telephone technology. The U.K.’s mobile/cellular phone system already needed 40,000 masts for 35 million users in 2001, the U.S.A. by extrapolation already had more than 200,000 telephone masts. Moreover, U.K. providers were predicting a need for a further 100,000 masts to improve services.
We have adapted far more to
background technology than many of us realise, and in overdeveloped and less developed countries alike, we consider telephones to be personal and household essentials.57 Nearly all of us, in making one of those countless daily telephone calls, assume were are doing so in confidence and privacy.
CAPTION: A cell phone base (with its housed sub-system inset) and mast. Any of the appropriate installations could have been penetrated to plant fake cell phone calls. A similar array of microwave masts used for in-flight telephones also could have been manipulated. (Promotional image.)
-------------------------------------------------However, by September 11th, 2001, the digitisation of nearly all American telephones had created a paradise for covert operations, because voices were no longer conveyed by vibrations sent from a diaphragm in the mouthpiece of a handset, but by on-off digits, or 1-0 chains. In the electronic backbone of long distance telephone service, a caller's voice in 2001 got measured or sampled 8,000 times a second.58 Instead of sound waves, telephone exchanges dealt in digits, which took up a fraction of the space and allowed huge amounts of data to be captured and examined by surveillance teams. Furthermore, digitisation enabled the fraudulent creation of telephone calls using cloned voice patterns. If
a telephone call was merely an agglomeration of ones and zeroes, obviously anyone duplicating them could manipulate the content of the phone calls. Technicians already able to convert a voice into a stream of dots and dashes, could copy that “voice” and make it “say” anything. The call recipient would never know the difference, just as Ted Olson (if he did not invent the calls) could not distinguish between a cloned voice and his wife’s. The calls could have been fraudulently made, and their registration fraudulently
53 inserted into the computers at AT&T Claircom, or possibly those of a cellular telephone provider, according to the evidence offered to the F.B.I. and the 9/11 Commission by American Airlines. Voice-cloning was well recognised before 9/11. A scientist called George Papcun had already developed digital voice-morphing technology at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in 1998.59 U.S. military intelligence would have mastered methods of cloning voices at least at the same time, if not before. In the wake of the break-through, voice-morphing became a first step towards cloning, available for about $99 on any computer screen.
CAPTION: The virtual control array of typical consumer voice-morphing software, in this case, AV Voice Changer. It put cloning just a step away. (Publicity image)
Civilian scientists ran with the idea. For example, at the National Center for Voice and Speech in Denver, Colorado, “Pavarobotti is a singing robot that represents the voice simulation research of Dr. Ingo Titze and colleagues. Pavarobotti's voice is actually a sophisticated computer model.”60 We can be sure that voice-cloning would have been among the technologies perfected by military and civil intelligence as soon as it became available.
55 Digital voice modification made its public debut in February, 2001, with the demonstration of an artificial actress at a Los Angeles conference attended by more than a thousand Hollywood movers and shakers who paid a substantial fee to attend. They watched a special-effects maven generating a three-dimensional on-screen human being, Ramona, who seemed to have crossed over the “uncanny valley” separating real humans from androids. The inventor passed his own voice through a computer to simulate perfectly a female’s.61 This was voice simulation, not cloning. Ramona’s voice was her inventor’s, not a copy of someone else’s. However, voice-cloning soon followed. At the same time as Ramona appeared, the sprawling combine AOL Time Warner and its subsidiary New Line Cinema were discussing a new movie with screenwriter Andrew Niccol. He intended to make a feature movie about a director who created just such an actress, formed entirely by computer generated imagery (CGI), and who parlayed her into a digital megastar. New Line Cinema executives had seen Ramona, and also the simulated actors created in a feature film called Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Attracted by the Disneyesque idea of generating celebrities without massive pay packages and points, they greenlighted Niccol’s movie, named S1m0ne.
56 “However, after heavy opposition from the Screen Actor's Guild, claiming in so many words that replacement of actors in ALL movies would be the next logical step, the idea was scrapped.”62 And so, the movie had to embrace the relatively new technology of voice-cloning. In the adjusted version, a human actress, Rachel Roberts, walked off the imagined set and the director, luckily bequeathed some original new CGI software by a friend, reproduced her digitally, using his own voice to clone Rachel Roberts’s. Working at a powerful computer console, he spoke into a microphone that by digital wizardry produced his idol’s sultry female tones, and finally won a fictional Oscar with his creation.
CAPTION: In 2001 Al Pacino played a movie svengali who used a voice-cloning device to speak the role of a digitised version of his human movie star, named S1m0ne. (Publicity photo) ………………………………………………………………………………… The U.S. military had a long history with Hollywood, going back to the recruitment and propaganda movies of the Second World War, Vietnam and other conflicts.63 Psychological operations officers no doubt attended the Ramona screening, because they had long been studying the computer technology involved in morphing voices for computer
58 generated actors. For example, in Presence, “the first academic journal for serious investigators of teleoperators and virtual environments”, two military scientists from the Air Force Research Laboratory Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, wrote enthusiastically in 2003 about ongoing Progress and Prospects for the Development of Computer Generated Actors for Military Simulation, evidently reflecting research that had been under way for some time.64 Fortunately for psy-ops teleoperators, the technique of computer-generated voice-morphing, as perfected two years in advance of 2001, could copy exactly the timbres produced by vocal cords and the idiosyncracies of intonation and expression. Voice-cloning completed their manipulation abilities in the audio-visual field, because already their CGI colleagues could imperceptibly insert moving pictures of people into scenes (or remove them Stalin-style), as earlier demonstrated in the smash-hit movie Forrest Gump, in which actor Tom Hanks appeared in historic news clips; they could create false battle back-drops as in the movie Wag The Dog, in which a Hollywood consultant generated a phoney war for the White House. Now teleoperators could copy the voice of Osama Bin Laden and dangle him like a bogey-man before the masses; or Mohamed Atta; or in the case of Barbara Olson, before her husband the U.S. solicitor general at his desk in
59 the department of Justice. An even easier task would be generating the voice of Todd Beamer, which no one heard but the stranger Lisa Jefferson (supposedly), and which no one in the superbly well-equipped Verizon Airfone operations surveillance center managed to record (See: Flight 93). All that was required to clone a voice in 2001 was a digitally-recorded sample of the target’s speech of about 10 minutes’ duration, something easily obtainable by covert telephone interception, or in the case of Barbara Olson, from one of many TV and radio appearances. “A leading authority on national security and the internet” wrote in the CIA’s favourite newspaper, the Washington Post, in early 1999 that “Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives…Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, [George] Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos [National Laboratory in New Mexico] can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks.” Of course, in this passage “enemy populations” could also read: the managed-down American masses.65 (Emphasis added.)
60 Forgery of telephone calls is not some far-out theory belonging on the margins. There is no privacy on the telephone. We might as well be shouting from the rooftops. The centralised infrastructure required for any telephone system has always guaranteed that telephone calls will be closely monitored and covertly intercepted by those in authority. The world duly learned, for example, that during the machinations to legalise the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, the telephone conversations of weapons monitor Hans Blix and U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan (and his staff) were monitored by US/UK intelligence. When the U.K.’s Princess Diana started campaigning against landmines, which are routine instruments of military interdiction, reports soon circulated of her private telephones being monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency.66 This was nothing new. Half a century earlier, Senator Edward V. Long had chaired a Congressional committee that investigated U.S. telephone surveillance and described his country as “a naked society, where every citizen is a denizen of a goldfish bowl”. Sen. Long lived in an era when telephone calls had to be individually bugged with miniaturised phone-tapping equipment that broadcast to tape recorders hidden nearby.67 Today, he would be astonished to survey our advanced phase of governmental “total information awareness”. Computers and
61 wireless networks have transformed the telephonic landscape, and telephone voices and transactions have all been digitised into 1+0 code that is easily processed by robotic software programs. Surveillance personnel have the power to monitor simultaneously every single telephone connection made and to intercept at will. Nothing escapes the attention of the racks of supercomputers such as the Cray XMTs at the UK’s GCHQ68, the USA’s NSA69, at transnational telecoms processing corporations70, and at covert military operations such as Able Danger, the one that secretly monitored the patsy Mohamed Atta as he phoned, paid with credit cards, used cash machines, rented cars, purchased fuel, browsed the internet and passed through airports, among other trackable activities. Cray advertises its high-powered machines as having “unique ‘massively multithreaded’ architecture and large global memory that is configured for applications such as data discovery, business intelligence. . .that require access to terabytes of data arranged in an unpredictable manner.”
Governments have always pretended that permanent interception and surveillance are not going on. For example, in 2006 the National Security Agency was found to have been assembling covertly just such an enormous database of US telephone calls (described above), using information
62 supplied by Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth. The government claimed, and the media reported, that such surveillance had only been instituted in the wake of 9/11, but the revelations of dissenting Qwest boss Joseph Nacchio, a lone voice of honesty in a sold-out industry, indicated in late 2007 that the government’s claim was disingenuous. Digital surveillance in 2001 could be carried out on an incredible scale. Under the headline ‘NSA Has Massive Database Of Americans' Phone Calls’, USA Today reported in 2006: • ‘It's the largest database ever assembled in
the world,’ said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is ‘to create a database of every call ever made’ within the nation's borders, this person added.72 For “goal” we may read “achievement”, because Nacchio’s revelations proved it to have been under way in February, 2001.73 The USA Today report repeated the U.S. government’s assurances that no one was being bugged: “The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording
63 conversations.” [Emphasis added.] But this was misleading, because telephone surveillance was effective without recording individual calls. Instead it used speechrecogniser technology to alert watchers to sensitive words. Thus they could track callers for the use of the words “bomb” or “hijack” in any language. We can look at a typical diagram of a small computerised speech recognition system as applied on a limited scale at a call centre. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
CAPTION: A diagram of circuitry includes “speech recognizers” and “call analysis software” designed to capture certain words (“lexical content”) in incoming calls to a call center. This is how government security
64 surveillance tracks calls containing trigger words. The technology hands phenomenal power to rogue users and hackers.74 ……………………………………………………………………………………… It shows the filtering of all calls through a “speech recognizer”, a device that can decipher and flag up from a list certain trigger-words used in speech. On 9/11 this technique of surveillance and interception had been available for more than a decade. Hutchinson Encylopedia writes of speech recognizers: “Spoken words are divided into ‘frames’, each lasting about one-thirtieth of a second, which are converted to a wave form. These are then compared with a series of stored frames to determine the most likely word. Research into speech recognition started in 1938, but the technology did not become sufficiently developed for commercial applications until the late 1980s.” It’s been everywhere in business for years, as in the robotic voice interfaces used by so many services, from banking to shopping, and the carefully-worded disclaimers we have regularly heard stating: “Your call may be monitored for training purposes.” We may be sure that as soon as this technology became available, governments and their intelligence agencies immediately adopted it.
65 In 2001, pen registers, or software devices that could detect and log remotely the numbers dialled by a caller, were habitually used by law enforcement agencies under warrants, and by their secret-state counterparts. So were trap and trace devices, which recorded incoming call numbers. Furthermore, telephone subscribers, by supplying to a telephone service provider a required number (in other words, by making a telephone call) were supplying information to a third party, something not covered by privacy law, and so the service providers could in theory supply the number or numbers involved to others without breaking the U.S. law. Nacchio and his corporate lawyers evidently were not so sure, and refused to supply Qwest’s call records to the National Security Agency, court documents revealed.75 The dispute revealed that, behind the scenes, telephone calls were a free-for-all. This is demonstrated by the publicity of a major supplier of telephone surveillance and interception technology, now called Verint (but known in 2001 as Comverse Infosys). Verint Systems describes itself as: • “a leading global provider of analytic
software solutions for communications interception, digital video security and surveillance, and enterprise business intelligence.
66 “Verint software generates actionable
intelligence through the collection, retention and analysis of voice, fax, video, email, Internet and data transmissions from multiple communications networks. • “The company’s products are installed in
government facilities, airports and transportation systems, customer contact and service centers, corporations, financial institutions, telecommunications carriers, and other organizations. Verint has a global presence with sales and support services across the U.S. and in 50 countries worldwide.” (Emphasis added.) Here the “retention of voice” is not disguised, but openly paraded in a sales pitch as used by “government facilities”, revealing disclaimers made by the NSA and other surveillance agencies that they do not monitor and automatically record calls to be deceptive. Furthermore, from retention of voice to substitution of voice is no distance at all. Verint and its clients would be obvious candidates for questioning about covert telephone operations related to the 9/11 events, but instead the name Comverse Infosys (i.e. Verint’s former name) does not appear in the Kean/Zelikow report and nor do the names of dozens of other corporations competing in this market.76
67 Another candidate would be an aggregator of telephone billing information. Such a company’s enormous database would be a magnet for moles needing access to billing systems with a view to hacking-in and modifying them. For example, globe-spanning Amdocs handles the phone bills of a billion telephone subscribers in 50 countries and “Amdocs' customers are among the largest, most powerful companies in the world”.77 A listed partner/alliance company of Amdocs is relational database designer Oracle. Its flamboyant boss Larry Ellison, does not hide the fact that he named his company after a CIA project in which he and his co-founders participated.78 Ellison played a mysterious role in the promotion of the alleged Todd Beamer phone call from Flight 93 that looks like another faked (or invented) call, but the 9/11 Commission never publicly questioned him. Such OSS corporations sell the means to intercept and examine all the telephone calls in North America. So the
most intimate of person-to-person relations, a private conversation, when conducted by telephone, might as well be broadcast on network television as far as the surveillance industry is concerned, and by the same token, artificial calls could be created and billed within their systems or those of their clients. Dozens of lavishly-financed capital
68 ventures with CIA connections are at work today on Homeland Security’s holy-grail scheme of bringing all monitored information on to one screen, for example in the enormously ambitious world-wide police/surveillance state involved in the US-VISIT plan.79 Since government schemes are only made public long after they have commenced covertly, we may be certain that such plans were already well-developed on September 11th, 2001. Indeed, it was in late 2007 that Nacchio, disgraced CEO of Qwest, revealed that the National Security Agency approached his corporation about helping the U.S. government to aggregate a gigantic database of Americans’ telephone calls before 9/11 occurred. The Washington Post reported: “[Qwest CEO Joseph P.] Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks [sic] on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks [sic] have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.”80 And just as we may assume that such surveillance schemes were well under way by September 11th, 2001, we may
69 equally assume that hackers were accessing them and infiltrating their operations. American Airlines’ seatback phone system (whether activated at the time on Flight 77 or not) was provided by AT&T Claircom. The in-flight telephone service had 160 ground stations distributed across the United States, Canada and Mexico, and two switching centers. Before it went bankrupt in 2002, the network served passengers with more than 100,000 inflight telephones on approximately 1,700 commercial and executive aircraft. In other words, Claircom was a telephone-interceptor’s paradise. Phone calls could have been simulated through any of the ground stations, or either switching center. Claircom’s headquarters was in Seattle, WA, conveniently adjacent to the Flight 77 aircraft’s manufacturer, the gigantic war-machine component and Pentagon contractor: Boeing.
CAPTION: Claircom’s telco/network racks at its Seattle HQ in 1994. (Video still by Eric Keisler.) firstname.lastname@example.org.
This unprecedented combination of a monitored air-toground telephone infrastructure with a tightly controlled aviation system and its elaborate security apparatus on the ground placed the 9/11 passengers and cabin-crews in a vertically-integrated sandwich between the Pentagon (air) and the FBI (ground). The central command and control
71 systems that embraced the whole structure offered unprecedented opportunities for covert operations that were far beyond the detailed surveillance capability of the U.S. Congress, a governing body dating from 18th century. In 1993, when all the airlines’ communications switched from analog to digital, the fantasy of filtering all the data on to one computer screen became reality.81 Systems integrators, a burgeoning profession in a booming sector, could seamlessly blend data from: • • • air-traffic control; aircraft communications; both air-crew and passengers’ telephone
activities; • ID, shopping, travel, financial, medical and
other supposedly confidential data into total information awareness on one screen, using relational databases to vector data across informational fields. This is the kind of screen that, under Pentagon supervision, the covert Able Danger82 operatives had been studying before 9/11 occurred, assembling, processing and archiving multiple terabytes of information, the equivalent of airplane-hangars filled with documents, to which they had instant access using relational database software of the type engineered by, for example, Oracle.
72 As there is no such thing as computer security (full, hundred per cent encryption being outlawed by governments) hacking into computer systems was easy for software experts, and we may be sure that unauthorised eyes were focusing on data aggregations similar to Able Danger’s. For example, in November, 2000, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed that deviant operatives had been running covert databases within the Agency for about 15 years. “Approximately 160 individuals were at some time or another involved,” C.I.A. announced.83 In March, 1999, a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. department of Defense was engaged in “all-out cyberwar”, with as many as 100 determined hacker attacks occurring every day.84 In the computer age, governments also lose huge amounts of information, thereby making it available to hackers.85 There were innumerable opportunities for covert operations in the vast state security apparatus of the U.S.A., where the federal government has not just one secure communications intranet, but at least three: Intelink, Siprnet and Niprnet86, and possibly a fourth, GovNet, a secure network contract that Nacchio claimed he was offered by the N.S.A. (allegedly worth $2bn) and refused when he failed to deliver Qwest’s calls database.87 Apart from C.I.A., which formally admitted that it had rogue elements
73 manipulating computer data, and the globe-spanning Pentagon that admitted it conducted domestic surveillance involving terabytes of information while conducting an all-out cyberwar, there was the U.S. Secret Service, which conducted (in the words of CNN88) “counterfeit or cyber and financial crime investigations”, a rich vein in which covert operations could be conducted; the National Security Agency, which has admitted conducting covert telephone data integration and surveillance; the Transportation Security Agency; the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and, naturally, the federal government’s political police force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, operating out of John Ashcroft’s department of Justice. There is always a time lag in the security world; the existing state of affairs invariably emerges into the mass media as an unheard-of innovation.89 So when in the wake of 9/11 the Pentagon appointed retired Adm. John Poindexter to head a “new” agency, the Information Awareness Office, it was to “develop” (read: take over) high-tech systems for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and provide for government officials immediate access to “new” surveillance and information-analysis. Like the shiny new surveillance system he was supposed to be introducing, Poindexter was already tested. He was a long-time
74 clandestine operative, having been the chief operations officer of the subversive Iran-Contra terrorist operation conducted covertly under President Reagan.90 On July 9th, 2008, the US Congress passed by a large majority legislation that permits government data-spying, including legal immunity for in-flight telecoms providers Verizon and AT&T for any involvement they have in secret domestic surveillance programmes.91
THE PENTAGON-LINKED PROVIDER
AT&T, besides owning Claircom Air-One, the seatback phone system used by American Airlines, was in 2001 an enthusiastic part of the American military-industrial empire. AT&T was not just an official provider of personal telecommunications services for all five branches of the U.S. military at 529 military bases worldwide, it also provided ship-to-shore calling services to 200 U.S. naval and coastguard ships. Furthermore, after holding the major Pentagon long-haul telecommunications contract for 12 years, in 1997, AT&T “captured the premiere Defense Department network contract of the decade with a bid of $970 million over a nine-year period a figure far below earlier DOD estimates and roughly
75 half the rate of competing bids”. AT&T would supply longhaul communications across the United States “providing the large pipes to easily move high-bandwidth images such as satellite reconnaissance photos or digital maps to key users”. The network would “provide a common user network for all the services and Defense agencies”92 AT&T was at the heart of the Pentagon’s telecoms system in 2001: • [The Pentagon] has designed [the Defense
Information Systems Network] which will eventually include extensions serving the Pacific and Europe as a single integrated cost-effective “global infosphere” designed to move high-bandwidth data as well as voice from as [Air Force Lt. Gen. Al] Edmonds put it “the foxhole to the White House.” Edmonds said DISN will help move the Joint Chiefs of Staff plans for warfare in the next century called Joint Vision 2010 from concept to reality. [Dick Lombardi president of AT&T Government Markets] said AT&T initially will provide DISA with OC-3 circuits that will serve as a continentwide backbone connecting key switching and network sites installed and operated by MCI under its Bandwidth Manager contract.
76 This backbone in turn will feed into T-3 and T-1 lines serving Army Navy Air Force and Defense agency installations with the services responsible for the networks on those bases.93 Moreover, in addition to being a key player in the Pentagon’s telecommunications, before the 9/11 events occurred AT&T became the corporate leader in collaborating with the secret U.S. National Security Agency in unauthorised domestic spying and the covert accumulation of gigantic databases of telephonic information. According to a lawsuit, AT&T allowed the National Security Agency to install data-mining equipment in secret rooms at AT&T offices in San Francisco and a handful of other cities.94 • [Former AT&T technician Mark Klein] alleged
that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T . Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content. He said the NSA built a special room to receive data streamed through an AT&T Internet room containing
77 "peering links," or major connections to other telecom providers. The largest of the links delivered 2.5 gigabits of data -- the equivalent of one-quarter of the Encyclopedia Britannica's text -- per second, said Klein, whose documents and eyewitness account form the basis of one of the first lawsuits filed against the telecom giants after the government's warrantlesssurveillance program was reported in the New York Times in December 2005.95 We know from Joseph Nacchio’s evidence that this kind of behind-the-scenes corporate collaboration with the secret state preceded 9/11, and would have allowed rogue operatives to insert digital information into communications pipes and create the fraudulent Barbara Olson telephone calls and the computer annotations to go with them. And that is how a U.S. court would come to see and hear government evidence that showed that a telephone call took place that was never connected, while a senior government official insisted that he received two telephone calls from the same caller. According to Ted Olson, in the first, very brief call, Barbara Olson’s cloned voice (which could have been articulated by any gruff-voiced male teleoperator) gave the vital hijackers-with-blades information and then cut the connection. In the second, it flattered Ted Olson by asking
78 him what she should tell the pilot, then cut the connection. The staccato calls and their abrupt interruptions combatted fraud detection. The computer records were originally hacked in, logging four calls, the records that American Airlines produced for the 9/11 Commission. Those records allowed room for the substantiating call from the Flight 77’s only other identified caller, flight attendant Renée May, to her mother in Las Vegas, Nevada, although the call-times did not fit with the later court evidence.
THE RENEE MAY VOICE
“At 9:12 Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so. Note 53: FBI report of investigation interview of Ronald and Nancy May, Sept. 12, 2001.”96
CAPTION: The Renee May voice allegedly called Renee’s mother for just 158 seconds. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. So, this call took place at 9:12 A.M. EST, even though the four calls given by the 9/11 Commission as having occurred on Flight 77 began at 9:15. (It’s a wonder that AT&T Claircom ever managed to bill any of its clients, with such an unreliable computer system.)
80 Perhaps AT&T Claircom was not responsible for billing, but instead it was some unidentified cellular telephone provider. After all, the evidence data for the May voice follows the Olson data in not giving a seating row number for the call, something that would have been registered by the Claircom computer, because the location of the seating row position of a seatback phone could be vital in emergency situations, and we know that the competing Verizon Airfone system yielded such information on the telephone operator’s screen.(See below: Flight 93.)97 As in the Barbara Olson call, so in the Renée May call evidence we see similar fudging of what kind of telephone was used, and additionally an inconsistency in the timing of the call, compared to the data provided to the 9/11 Commission by American Airlines. As with all the call evidence, on both American Airlines and United Airlines aircraft, no corporate sourcing accompanies the evidential data. This is as evidentially unsatisfactory as the 9/11 Commission citing telecoms data provided by an airline. There cannot be any mystery about what type of telephone Renee May used, because the bill for her cell phone would show the call if she used it, and her creditcard bill would show a call if she used one of the Claircom seatback phones (which possibly had been deactivated on all
81 American’s Boeing 757s). First reports of the May voice’s call came from Las Vegas on September 13th, presumably prepared on the 12th. • Renee May, a flight attendant who a source
said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas. • Linda Campbell, a spokeswoman for the
Community College of Southern Nevada, confirmed Wednesday that flight attendant Renee May was the daughter of college employee Nancy May… • Campbell said Nancy May had asked college
officials not to release information about her or her daughter… • Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a
colleague of Nancy May's said the woman was devastated. • The mother, according to the source, received
a phone call Tuesday from her daughter after 6 a.m. [local time]. Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to let them know Flight 77 had been hijacked. Her mother called the airline, the source said.
82 “She told her mother they were all told to
move to the back of the plane,” said the source, who declined to share other personal details about the phone call.98 The local story cited an anonymous “source” who reported the cell-phone call and gave details of it. Since the F.B.I. interviewed Nancy May on the 12th, the Bureau also must have endorsed the cell phone attribution. The problem with the cell-phone attribution is the unknown altitude of Flight 77, which a contributor examines in Paul Zarembka’s authoritative compendium The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, finding that the plane set out at 35,000 feet and supposedly arrived near the Pentagon at 7,000 feet.99 Nowhere on the aircraft’s presumed trajectory would a cell phone have connected for long enough to make a coherent call. This accords with the F.B.I.’s surprise retreat from the cell phone calls that had for years been reported coming from Flight 93.100 Furthermore, the call comes in late for a hijacking alert. According to the 9/11 Commission, the “likely takeover” time was between 8:51 and 8:54 A.M. EST, making the May voice’s call about a quarter of an hour late.101 Nor is there an easy explanation of why the May voice asked the unfortunate dupe Nancy May to report a hijacking to American
83 Airlines a quarter of an hour after it had occurred, particularly if more reliable and speed-dialable Claircom telephones were available. Indeed, her late cellular phone call would be positive evidence that such seatback phones were not installed, as an American Airlines official admitted. (see P. xx) Griffin and Balsamo have examined, and rejected, the likelihood of Flight 77’s 64 human occupants making just two cell phone calls, had they been possible.102 The May voice only spoke to the pitiable mother for two and a half minutes, keeping it short to prevent identity suspicions and to convey the impression that her voice was calling on an intermittently-functioning cell phone. Significantly, the U.S. prosecutors at the Moussaoui trial protected their backs (and attempted to evade a prison sentence for evidence fabrication) by fudging the issue and failing to attribute her call to either a Claircom handset or a cell phone. Nor did they provide her cell phone number. Since a functioning Claircom handset was possibly not available on Flight 77 and a cell phone would not have worked, this was understandable. Whatever the status of the U.S. prosecution evidence, the call received by Nancy May was a brutal hoax, and a transparent attempt to validate an illusory flight. The 9/11 lie is so enormous, so vaultingly
84 ambitious, so insanely arrogant, that the perpetrators in their contempt for the lowly American people and its court system were convinced they could never be brought to justice.103 However, modern communications that made the deception possible, have also made its detection and denunciation inevitable.
WAS CALL FORGERY POSSIBLE?
Felons forging telephone calls from the two individuals supposedly aboard Flight 77 would have needed: • • Foreknowledge of the terror events; Foreknowledge of the targeted names on the airline
passenger manifest; • Foreknowledge of ID information about the
passengers, e.g. their families’ forenames; • Previous access to their phone lines and recorded
samples of their telephone voices; • • Foreknowledge of their home telephone numbers; Knowledge of their credit card data and ready
access to the billing systems; • systems. This might seem to any private citizen a daunting list of requirements, but they were the daily bread and butter of Ready access to seatback telephone billing
85 intelligence operatives at the outset of the 21st century when the U.S.A. had become a fully-fledged computerised environment, with a parallel digital dimension in which expert hackers with unlimited resources could gain access to almost any information they required. We can check availability of all the requirements: • Foreknowledge of the terror events has been
proven by the profitable insider trading in U.S. airlines and World Trade Center company futures, although the felons involved have never been identified, and the 9/11 Commission blatantly covered up the issue.104 • Foreknowledge of some of the names on the
passenger manifest could have been obtained through intelligence sources whose job was to monitor suspicious travellers at check-in through the covert Computer-assisted Pre-screening System (CAPPS) administered by the F.B.I. and the F.A.A. Admittedly, the more rigorous system that was introduced later, CAPPS II, would have been more effective, but covert pilot programmes could have been in place at Logan, Newark and Dulles airports to test the planned fullblown surveillance system. On the other hand, the Northwoods model planned to place covert operatives on
86 board an aircraft that would be replaced by a remotelycontrolled dummy. It’s interesting in this regard that the F.B.I. and U.S. mass media subsequently made errors in the passenger lists they promoted for all four flights, demonstrating that they had assembled them without access to the airlines’ flight manifests. The source of their lists is not known. Valid flight manifests have never been published; the provenance of those appearing on the internet was unclear and they contained implicit contradictions, such as listing alleged culprits who were not at first named by police supposedly using the manifests. At least one relative who found a passenger, presumed dead, to be alive declared himself to have been hoaxed.105 • With foreknowledge of passenger details,
voice profiles could have been prepared in advance using the huge existing surveillance database that was alleged by a senior telecoms industry figure to have been under way in February, 2001. Of note here is the fact that CNN’s original report of the Barbara Olson calls mentioned that Olson had delayed her trip west by one day in order to be with her husband on his birthday. The detail had poignant news value, but also served to head off suspicions that anyone might have
87 had foreknowledge of her alleged presence on the flight. A number of last-minute flyers or transferred flyers appeared among other passengers noted by massmedia reports. Barbara Olson was said by her husband to have changed her reservation at the last minute. This might have served a similar diversionary purpose. • Knowledge of credit card data, covert access
to credit-card billing systems, and covert access to seatback telephone billing systems were available to hackers in the wake of 9/11. We have shown that military intelligence officers trawled credit card data without difficulty before 9/11, and we have cited examples of covert computer operations known to have been conducted by just one agency, the U.S. Secret Service, among at least 16 other known agencies within the U.S. secret state. This ugly situation had been signalled decades earlier. When the use of computers had started to proliferate in the 1980s, several knowledgeable authors had attempted to warn the U.S. public of the impending threat to their privacy, to no avail. Warnings continued to be published right up to 9/11, for example Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century, By Simson Garfinkel, first published in December 2000.
VOICES FROM FLIGHT 11 MOHAMED ATTA’S PHONE CALLS
The controlled U.S. mass media named Mohamed Atta as the commander of the Islamic fanatics blamed for the 9/11 terror events. His dour, bogey-man mugshot106 flashed around the world via Associated Press TV, and later Court TV107 demonised him in an hour-long documentary piped into 86 million U.S. homes. That was the launch of the continuing terror-scare campaign. However, independent researchers have grim suspicions about the role of Atta. For example, the FBI Director made strange statements with regard to Atta’s cell phone. Robert S. Mueller III told the U.S. Joint Intelligence Committee: “A telephonic message on that same day [9/11/01] recovered from Atta's cellular telephone has Ziad Jarrah referring to Atta as boss.” [Emphasis added.] Regarding the content of the call, it’s quite possible that Jarrah called Atta and addressed him as “boss” if the men were patsies, lured into position by a sting operation, probably concerning non-medical drugs. A Florida researcher interviewed persons who alleged that Atta (at least, one of the Attas) was well-known in south-west Florida for his cocaine habit, and Jarrah came from the Bekaah valley of the
89 Lebanon, where they produced powerful hashish, and people reported him smoking it at parties with his pretty girlfriend in Germany whom he telephoned every day
to fly would fit the scenario, as drug deliveries are often made by small plane. A few months earlier, both men had travelled separately to Las Vegas, a notorious moneylaundering Mecca of a non-Islamic type, and Atta had driven obsessively in the 34 days previous to 9/11, covering 4,200 miles in three rented cars, or an average of 123 miles per day, possibly on drug deals, risking a police interview the whole time. On September 11th, the two might well have thought they were travelling to the west coast covertly to arrange a big shipment. Of course, this is pure supposition, like the official Atta story.110 What is peculiar about Mueller’s statement is that he referred to recovering the call from Atta’s cellular telephone. The handset itself, of course, would have disappeared with Atta in the WTC North Tower conflagration. The word “boss” indicates that Bureau monitors overheard the conversation, which in turn suggests that they had managed to substitute for Atta’s phone an identical ‘Spy Phone’ that broadcasts its communications to monitors. Alternatively, they might have listened in through NSA or corporate channels, using digital equipment that identified trigger
90 words, or simply perused transcripts produced on-screen by software programs. Cell phone networks are notorious for their lack of privacy, even when digitised. Whatever the surveillance methodology used, Mueller’s statement indicates that the FBI was monitoring Atta right up to the boarding gate of American Airlines. It’s indicative of pre-9/11 surveillance that the FBI knew Atta’s cell phone number at all, since the handset should have turned to toxic dust in the crash and the subsequent presumed controlled-demolition of the North Tower. Knowledge of this call suggests that the FBI had been able to trace his phone number, which like everything else about his life was under his own name because he was being set up as a patsy. But knowing his number and monitoring his calls were at odds with the paranoid ‘hidden menace’ theme of the administration, and with Mueller’s assertion that the alleged hijackers “hid their communications by using hundreds of different pay phones and mobile phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards”.111 The only thing that linked Atta to Boston Logan airport apart from his airline ticket (purchased earlier by telephone using a credit card number, which proved nothing) was an alleged three-minute call to his cell phone from a payphone in the gate area from where Flight 175 would later
91 depart. Of this call the Kean/Zelikow report wrote: “We presume [Marwan Al] Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure.”112 Note that Atta presumably took a call from Shehhi. presumption made on the very first
This was a significant
page of the Commission’s door-stopper-sized report. No available photographic evidence put Shehhi in the weirdly surveillance-free interior of the airport (there were surveillance cameras covering the car parks).113 Earlier, FBI Director Mueller had told the U.S. Joint Intelligence Committee: “When Atta arrived at Logan Airport, he received a telephone call on his cellular telephone from a pay phone located inside Terminal ‘C’. This call is believed to have originated from one of the Flight 175 hijackers who were waiting to board Flight 175 which was boarding in Terminal ‘C’.”114 As Mueller admitted, it was not even definitely Shehhi who had called, but ‘one of the Flight 175 hijackers’. Even this vaguer attribution of the call was just a belief. By the time the Kean/Zelikow commission reprocessed his evidence, however, the presumption had become that Shehhi made the call, not merely “one of” the alleged hijackers. Continuing our drug-sting supposition, the payphone caller could just as easily have been Atta’s illusory drug connection, instructing him on some pretext or another to
92 check in and then leave the airport. If he checked the fantastically incriminating baggage115 attributed to him, it then would make its way to the CAPPS stream and stop (because he had not boarded), and sit there waiting to be found by the hundreds of law officers who later streamed into the shut-down airport.116 Either that, or Atta simply performed his errand, his handlers escorted him away for
liquidation117, and felons planted the baggage for discovery by police. If genuine, the cell-phone calls do not establish that Atta boarded Flight 11 at Boston Logan airport on the morning of 9/11, but they do prove that the F.B.I. had him under surveillance immediately before the events, something highly incriminating of the U.S. administration that the 9/11 Commission never considered. There was an attempt to establish that Atta boarded Flight 11. The New York Times reported after a suspiciously long interval (11/4/2001) another phone call between Shehhi and Atta, this one supposedly having occurred while they were aboard, waiting for their two aircraft to take off. Time magazine adopted this report nearly a year later (8/4/2002). More presumption was involved, this time that the men “confirmed the plot was on”. We can safely dismiss this transparent attempt to place the men inside the
93 aircraft as coming from media later hopelessly discredited by their eager retailing of the warmaking WMD lies.
“Between 6:45 and 7:40, [the men] checked in and boarded Flight 11, bound for Los Angeles. The flight was scheduled to depart at 7:45,” the 9/11 Commission asserted, without giving any evidence at all (other than the conveniently overheard and late-reported phone call), either from surveillance cameras, airline documentation or boarding personnel.118 So here’s another tendentious presumption, that Atta boarded his flight.119
THE MADELINE “AMY” SWEENEY VOICE
It’s an outstanding contradiction in the official narrative of the 9/11 events that two flight attendants ostensibly called from Flight 11 to warn American Airlines of a hijacking, and between them kept warning for a total of some 45 minutes, their calls overlapping to bring the warning to a crescendo that lasted for some 20 minutes, but
air traffic controllers kept dithering throughout. The one would seem to disprove the other: if flight attendants called and badgered people for that long, the emergency system should have worked. Instead, the system failed, so why did the mass-media adopt and dramatise the women’s
94 lengthy calls? The media controlled, not the events, but the mirror, or narrative of events. The calls could have been played down or suppressed, as in the case of the nonconforming Ed Felt emergency call from Flight 93 (see P. xxx)). Instead they were promoted. As Kurt Nimmo writes: “According to FAA regulations, when planes are hijacked the FAA hijack coordinator is contacted and a request is made to provide a military escort. Of course, since the flight controller was probably asleep at the wheel and government systems are terminally broken due to chronic imbecility, [debunker Alexander] Cockburn would have us believe any number of flight controllers either didn’t notice or didn’t find it unusual when transponder and radio contact was lost with Flight 11. But not only was contact lost with the flight, it also deviated from its flight path. In addition, two airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking.”120 In addition to this startling contradiction, there’s a stark contrast between the reported cool, calm and collected work-ethic of the corporate-sector cabin crew in the upper atmosphere and the reported cluelessness of the governmental functionaries on the ground. Therefore, it is not a great surprise to find that the U.S. government’s court-evidence pages for the Betty Ong and
95 Madeline ‘Amy’ Sweeney voices, the only ones supposed to have come “from” Flight 11, are unconvincing. ………………………………………………………………………..
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The U.S. government’s evidence file shows that Sweeney voice’s fifth and crucial call, not identified by seat row, ostensibly lasted more than 13 minutes, an impossible feat by cellular telephone from a speeding jetplane at whatever altitude. ………………………………………………………………………………..
96 The Amy Sweeney voice’s call from Flight 11 was originally reported authoritatively as coming from a cellular telephone. The original FBI affidavit filed121 by Special Agent James Lechner in applying for a search warrant on Sept 12th, 2001 stated: “On Sept. 11, 2001, FBI agents interviewed a witness who is an employee of American Airlines at Logan. The witness reported that he had received a telephone call shortly prior to the collision of AA11 with the World Trade Center from a flight attendant on AA11 using a cellular telephone.”122 That was the FBI (and American Airlines) resoundingly claiming a cell phone call in the immediate wake of the events, citing the call’s recipient himself. However, the evidence file presented by the F.B.I. to the Moussaoui trial does not provide a cell phone number for Amy Sweeney, as it does in the case of the voice known as Ed Felt on Flight 93, a call that reportedly reached 911 emergency operators (see Pxxx). Furthermore, the duration of the Sweeney voice’s fifth call is as unlikely for a cell phone in 2001 as the brief duration of the two calls that preceded it was for a seatback phone. Holding a two-way cell phone conversation for the entire 13-minute duration of Flight 11’s alleged swooping, accelerating vector into Manhattan and the WTC
97 North Tower would have been very improbable, if not impossible. Cells (loosely described as such) have a diameter of about two to eight miles, so averaging them at five miles each, a jet flying at 550 m.p.h. would have passed over each cell in 32 seconds, and smaller cells of, say, 2.5 miles’ diameter (approaching Manhattan) in 16 seconds each. The cell phone network would have had to execute an extraordinary 40 hand-offs during the call. Added to which, all 40-odd connections to these cells would be complicated by the three-watt transmission from the cell phone reaching the network from an altitude of, say, 10,000 feet and attempting to register with more than one cell at a time, thereby scrambling the system and disabling the call. “Harmful interference to terrestrial networks” was precisely the reason that the Federal Communications Commission banned cell phone use aboard aircraft.123 Cell phone expert Thomas Farley wrote: “I think there would be enough time to make a connection but keeping it going would be near impossible.”
Cell phone engineer Mark G. van der Hoek wrote: “A bigger At 10,000 feet, you'll see
issue would be interference.
enough cell sites that you'll have a very hard time sorting them out. And of course, your reverse link would be
clobbering a lot of sites. This is a big part of why cellphones haven't been authorized for use on planes.”125
98 The public was informed for the first time in mid-2004 that the Sweeney voice had not come from a cellular telephone, but instead from a seatback phone. This information came third-hand by way of a phone call from Nancy Wyatt, supervisor of pursers at Boston Logan airport, to American Airlines bosses in Texas, reporting the call being taken at the time by flight services manager Michael Woodward. “The young blond mother of two had secreted herself in the next-to-last passenger row and used an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant, Sara Low, to call the airline’s flight-services office at Boston’s Logan airport.”126 Wyatt’s call allegedly was recorded by AA management at their head office in Texas, and apparently was kept a secret for three years until it was played to a select group of the bereaved in June, 2004, a month before the publication of the 9/11 Commission report. It put the U.S. Moussaoui prosecution in an invidious position. Clearly, Woodward had reported the call to the F.B.I. as a cell phone call, and the F.B.I., which drew up the only transcript of his account, had endorsed the attribution. On the other hand, Woodward’s colleague had cited him giving details of Sweeney’s use of an AirFone (sic) card, the identity of the
99 staffer who had given it to her, and the location of the AT&T Claircom seatback phone she had used. The 9/11 Commission dealt with this awkward situation in 2004 by failing to attribute the Sweeney voice’s calls, and in 2006 the U.S. Moussaoui prosecution followed suit. In fact, any seatback phone call data supplied to the department of Justice would have been generated by AT&T Claircom’s OSS, and the seat row number, presumably, would have been available. On the other hand, any cell phone call data would have arisen from one of the cellular telephone providers, and the number of Sweeney’s handset would have been available, as was Ed Felt’s in his evidence file. In view of the FBI’s abrupt abandonment of nearly all the Flight 93 cell phone calls in its testimony at the
Moussaoui trial, it’s surprising that the evidence from the department of Justice allowed any implication that a 13minute cell phone call took place on Flight 11. In an apparent attempt to fudge the issue, they neither identified the seatback phone nor gave a cell-phone number, data that phone companies’ computers would not have missed for billing the call.
WHAT THE SWEENEY VOICE SUPPOSEDLY SAID
100 Ever since the Los Angeles Times published an F.B.I. transcript of what Amy Sweeney’s voice is supposed to have said, important discrepancies have been noted, even in the mass media. For example, the BBC’s on-line news service wrote on September 21st, 2001: • Ms. Sweeney's account of the hijacking
provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information. • The FBI has named five hijackers on board
Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. • Also, the seat numbers she gave were
different from those registered in the hijackers' names.127 These could have been bureaucratic blunders, because once again the content of the reported calls, which was pure hearsay, was being treated as scripture. Who knows what the Amy Sweeney voice said? For years, the only source for the story was the F.B.I., which attributed the call to a cellular telephone, citing AA manager Michael Woodward, who claimed he took a cell-phone call, presumably basing his claim on a caller ID or what the caller told him, but nevertheless thereby seriously damaging his own credibility, and in turn the credibility of the F.B.I., because making such a cell phone call was impossible.
101 Furthermore, the media reports of everything the Sweeney voice allegedly said in the call came from the same F.B.I. interviews, according to CNN: • A flight attendant detailed the hijacking of
American Airlines Flight 11 up to the final frantic seconds when the jetliner crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center during an in-flight phone call, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
The Times' story attributes the account to an
investigative document compiled by the FBI and taken from a phone call Madeline Amy Sweeney made to a ground manager at Logan International Airport in Boston.
American Airlines officials told The Times
that phone calls are not typically recorded, meaning the conversation was likely reconstructed by the FBI from interviews with Michael Woodward, the manager who took the phone call.
“This plane has been hijacked,” Sweeney said,
according to the FBI report, in a call that came shortly after the Flight 11 was commandeered.128 [Emphasis added.]
102 Mr. Michael Woodward was in charge of cabin crews who enforced the ban on in-flight cell-phone calls and dealt with exasperated passengers who phoned anyway and could not get through. In other words, he was reporting cell-phone calls that he should have known could not have happened. The F.B.I. in this case compounded the error by recording what Woodward said he heard, as if they had heard it themselves, when all they were doing was recounting pure hearsay. What possible weight can we give to the Bureau’s account of what the Sweeney voice said, when it falsely attributed the call to a cell phone that any American Airlines staffer should have known would not have worked above roughly 8,000 feet of altitude? Eventually, in 2004, the F.B.I. played to about 150 relatives of the victims the American Airlines recording of the purser-supervisor, Nancy Wyatt, who relayed the call, recounting the Sweeney voice’s call to American Airlines bosses. The Bureau placed the audience under a strict gag order, and so very little of the contents of the call from the Sweeney voice, related at third hand by an overhearer of a listener, became available. We know that the recorded material differed radically in one vital respect: it contradicted the F.B.I.’s original account and attributed the call to a seatback phone. Whether the rest of the
103 information relayed by Nancy Wyatt matched the information in the F.B.I.’s transcript will presumably never be known until a new, independent inquiry into the 9/11 events is under way. One thing is certain, it made a complete mockery of the legal ban on hearsay evidence, being not just hearsay, but hearsay of hearsay.
WOODWARD AND PHANTOM FLIGHT 12
Let’s suppose that American’s employee, Mr. Michael Woodward, accurately reported his alleged conversation with Amy Sweeney, even if the call could never have happened by cellular telephone. Perhaps he believed his caller, or saw a familiar caller ID. Perhaps he was mistaken, the call actually came from a seatback telephone, and the F.B.I. diligently transcribed what the Sweeney voice said. There is still a problem with the content of the call, because Sweeney reportedly misnamed her flight as Flight 12 9/11 Commission Report has a footnote on how Michael Woodward responded to the hijack warning issued by the Amy Sweeney call (which according to the Commission has now become an “airphone” or seatback telephone call, even though the U.S. government prosecution could not provide the seat row number of the call):
104 Starting at 8:22, Amy Sweeney attempted by
airphone to contact the American Airlines flight services office at Logan, which managed the scheduling and operation of flight attendants. Sweeney's first attempt failed, as did a second at 8:24. When she got through to Nunez, the latter thought she had reported her flight number as 12. Michael Woodward, supervisor at the Boston office, hearing that a problem had been reported aboard an American airplane, went to American's gate area at Logan with his colleague Beth Williams. Woodward noted that the morning bank of flights had all departed Boston and the gate area was quiet. He further realized that Flight 12 had not even departed yet, so he and Williams returned to the office to try to clarify the situation. See FBI report, ‘American Airlines Airphone Usage,’ Sept 20, 2001: Michael Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004). The phone call between Sweeney and Woodward lasted about 12 minutes (8:32-8:44) and was not taped.130 The American Airlines flight services staff could not have been mistaken about the flight number given by the Sweeney voice. There is little auditory resemblance between the number ‘eleven’ and the number ‘twelve’. Given the hijack warning from Flight 12, Woodward’s response to the
105 information is peculiar, too. He apparently believed that the incoming call meant there was a “problem” on board Flight 12. It is hard to imagine a person of normal intelligence mistaking a hijacking, particularly the first in the U.S.A. for 15 years, for a “problem” and not a crisis. In addition, a hijacking usually occurs when an aircraft is airborne, not sitting at its docking bay at the airport. Nevertheless, believing that a flight attendant whom he supposedly knew well had reported a “problem” aboard Flight 12 he went out into the airport flight-side and took a look at the American Airlines bays, and found most of them deserted and Flight 12 still ready to depart. Woodward reportedly was Sweeney’s supervisor. As such, he should have known by glancing at a roster what flight Sweeney was working that morning. He should have known the approximate departure time of Flight 12 as well. After receiving a warning of the first U.S. hijacking in 15 years, what could have motivated him (and a companion) to take a walk flight-side to the American Airlines docking bays to find Flight 12 still parked, awaiting its departure? His knowledge of Sweeney’s work assignment should have ruled out any delusion about Flight 12, and his knowledge of Flight 12’s timetable should have obviated his time-consuming trip flight-side to check the loading bays.
106 Woodward’s behaviour appears irrational, but whether there was deception involved or not, the fact remains that the 9/11 Commission, purveyors of the official story of 9/11, admitted that American Airlines thought they heard the Sweeney voice telling them that she was aboard Flight 12, not Flight 11. The Amy Sweeney call was highly influential at the time in persuading the American people, and the rest of the world, that hijackers had seized the first crash aircraft and committed atrocities aboard, thereby proving their suicidal intentions, but the problems with it go as follows: 1. The F.B.I. initially reported the Sweeney
call to a U.S. court judge as a cell phone call, although such a cell phone call could not have happened, and American Airlines flight services staff should have known it ---- and indeed a third-hand witness later did attribute the call differently. 2. The U.S. government’s evidence at the
Moussaoui trial suggested the call was made by cell phone by not giving a seat row number for a seatback phone call, but did not provide a cell phone number, something that should have been readily available from telecoms provider.
107 3. According to one report issued in the wake of
the events, the F.B.I.’s account of the Sweeney voice’s call to Michael Woodward said that the call came in just after hijackers had seized control of the aircraft, at 8:25 AM. However, the 9/11 Commission put the hijacking eleven minutes earlier, at 8:14 “or shortly thereafter”.131 4. Cell phone experts agree with the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission that a cell phone call would have been impossible under the aeronautical circumstances supplied by the U.S. government. 5. An American Airlines recording played by the
F.B.I. along with the 9/11 Commission asserted that the call was made by “airphone” or seatback phone, but the U.S. government evidence did not provide the requisite seat row number to identify the seatback phone’s position, something vital to know in an emergency. 6. The sensational content of the call was
provided to the mass media by the F.B.I. and nobody else. 7. The Sweeney voice reportedly gave a false
THE BETTY ONG VOICE
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The Ong voice conveniently was recorded at a reservations desk, but not for too long, only four minutes. …………………………………………………………..
The prosecution evidence page for the flight attendant Betty Ong’s calls does not give a seat row number for her voice’s phone call, instead asserting that she placed a call by AT&T Claircom seatback telephone “from rear” and pointing an arrow to the cabin-crew’s locker area near the tail of
109 the plane and the rear toilet. This accords with “Ong’s” statement in the recorded fragment of the call, that she was on her jump seat at 3R, meaning three right-hand side exit doors back, in other words at the rear of the plane. Since she had to use either an Airfone or a cell-phone, and the latter was impossible, Ong presumably used a cabincrew phone.132 The biggest mystery about the call is that the Ong voice did not speed-dial AA’s flight service department, or the airline’s headquarters, as cabin-crew members did on other 9/11 flights. Instead, her voice reached----of all places---- a reservations sales desk at American Airlines in North Carolina. The Ong voice chose this remote and arbitrary-seeming seat-sales office over the much more logical Logan Airport flight service department which managed her cabin crew, and which her colleague Amy Sweeney’s voice called. This call destination has never been explained, except by the claim that it was a free call. It is a particularly strange location to call in view of the fact that the Ong voice reportedly told the sales agents at approximately 08:20 AM that no other calls had been made from Flight 11. Why did the Ong voice make the first hijack warning call in 15 years from a prestige transcontinental flight to a lowly ticket-sales office? It was a facility
110 that existed in a part of the airline’s operations that was separate from in-flight services. Sales agents sold tickets there: it was a place where no one would know anything about Ms. Ong herself or the job she did in the sky. Furthermore, why did the reservations desk hold on to the call for 27 minutes, and not simply give Ong another number, for example the number of the AA flight service department, or the AA headquarters, or the F.B.I., or the F.A.A., and ask her to
call them instead? Or obligingly transfer her through their own PABX, something reasonably simple for trained sales staff? As was widely observed when the cover-up actions of AA management were revealed in 2004, the take-off of Flight 77 might have been prevented by such a common-sensical redirection of Ong’s call. Instead, she futilely narrated the supposed events aboard her flight to persons wholly unqualified to deal with them, and when they recounted her narration to American Airlines headquarters, the AA bosses decided on a cover-up. Assume for a moment that the call was a forgery. The fact that no one at a ticket sales desk would have a clue about what to do in Ong’s situation would be an advantage when simulating a lengthy call from a supposedly trained and experienced flight-attendant who would possess certain inside information, such as code-words to denote the urgency
111 of a situation, cockpit door codes, crew safety procedures, and the like. It would also help that no one would know Ong personally. In other words, the ticket-office call would have helped a teleoperator felon to avoid detection in this, the most vital and lengthy of all the 9/11 calls. According to the U.S. government evidence, the duration of the Ong voice’s call was exactly 27 minutes, meaning that it ended about a minute before the accepted crash time of 8:46:40. This is the longest call reported from any of the rogue flights. It was also the first hijack warning to come in. The extraordinary duration of the call we can attribute to its importance as the first-ever in-flight seatback telephone call from a hijacked aircraft, and to the vital information that it had to establish about the first-ever suicide airliner attack, including the stabbings in first class, the closed cockpit, the rogue pilots, the Mace, and so on. What’s more, it reported the first U.S. hijacking in 15 years, so the reservation-desk callees’ ignorance of cabin-crew matters would be compounded by their general astonishment at the news. Indeed, the recording of the Ong voice’s first four minutes of narration that became available133 demonstrated that the call recipients were predictably bewildered by the voice and for at least three minutes suspected it to be fraudulent. “Who’s calling
112 reservations?” asked a suspicious Nydia Gonzalez, the AA sales agent, after three minutes. “Have you called anyone else?” her colleague followed up. (“No”, replied Ong, which must have raised suspicions even higher.) Twenty minutes later the ticket agents were still trying to convince AA operations center that Ong was on another line to their office, because they apparently were unable to connect the two lines through their own PABX. So, from any forgers’ point of view, the call had to last for nearly the whole of the rest of the flight, in order that the callees could be thoroughly convinced of its authenticity. Why the call was not redirected is a question never asked by the impassioned adherents of the official legend. One answer would be that suspicious staff at the AA sales office held on to the Ong voice’s call while they awaited a call-trace from telecoms engineers, which takes much longer in reality than in movie dramatisations. If such a call-trace showed that the call did not come from Flight 11, it might have been a valid motive for AA management’s subsequent cover-up decision. In any case, a call-trace was unnecessary: AA operations manager Craig Marquis, if alerted by Gonzalez to a possibly simulated in-flight call, could have checked with Airfone staff, who could look at their computer screens to tell immediately whether the call was genuine.
113 A clue about why the Ong voice chose to call such a remote part of the American Airlines organisation might come from the following supposition. Plotters might have known that American’s reservations office in Cary, N.C., had just installed new recording equipment that recorded the first four minutes of any reservations call, for call-screening and archiving purposes. Such intelligence would not be hard to obtain through the security contractor or directly from the equipment provider. Calling the Cary office ensured that the Ong voice would be recorded, not for the whole duration of the call, but just for a handy four-minute snippet, long enough to frighten the daylights out of the U.S. public, but not long enough for any blunders by the teleoperator to be exposed for all to hear (although the recorded Ong voice did at first misidentify the flight as Flight 12 on the recording). The shocked callees could be relied on not to remember much. In their bewilderment they might not have the initiative to instruct Ong to call a more appropriate number either (assuming they were not awaiting the result of a trace). Subsequently, a prompt visit by F.B.I. agents (or possibly personnel from other intelligence agencies posing as them) could clear up any problems that arose at the Cary end. Besides, shocked American Airlines would be conducting an almost-immediate defensive cover-up, so any suspicions
114 about the unnaturally calm call, its senseless destination and its duration, would be either dispelled or suppressed.
A WORLD’S FIRST
The Ong voice’s call was the the first-ever hijack warning telephoned in-flight from the seatback of a skyjacked aircraft. Here’s the account of it from History Commons’ 9/11 Timeline: • 08:19 AM Flight 11 attendant Betty Ong calls
Vanessa Minter, an American Airlines reservations agent at its Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, using a seatback Airfone from the back of the plane. [Nearly all the calls from the Ong and Sweeney voices are not recordable by AA staff, something that could have been established in advance.] • [Ong has to engage with Minter and another
employee, Winston Sadler, who are sceptical about her identity, for about two minutes.] Then, at 8:21 a.m., supervisor Nydia Gonzalez is patched in to the call as well. Ong says, “The cockpit’s not answering. Somebody’s stabbed in business class and… I think there’s Mace… that we can’t breathe. I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.” Asked what flight she is
115 on, she mistakenly answers, “Flight 12,” though a minute later she corrects this, saying, “I’m number three on Flight 11.” [C.f. Amy Sweeney’s identical error, P. xx] • She continues, “And the cockpit is not
answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s… we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got Mace or something… I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.” As this quote shows, other flight attendants [apparently] relay information from the front of the airplane to Ong sitting in the back, and she periodically waits for updates. • She goes on, “I think the guys are up there
[in the cockpit]. They might have gone there —--jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get inside.” Ong’s emergency call will last about 25 minutes, being cut off around 8:44 a.m. However, the recently installed recording system at the American Airlines reservations center contains a default time limit, and consequently only the first four minutes of it will be recorded. Gonzalez later testifies that Ong was “calm, professional and in
116 control” all through the call. [9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004; New York Observer, 2/11/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 5 and 453; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 8-9] 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey, who will hear more recordings than are made public, later says that some officials on the ground greeted Ong’s account skeptically: “They did not believe her. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ They asked her to confirm that it wasn’t air-rage. Our people on the ground were not prepared for a hijacking.” [New York Times, 4/18/2004 Sources: Bob Kerrey] Blatantly overlooked in this report is the inexplicability of the call’s recipient: a travel sales desk, accessed by a number intended for travellers, not flight crew. Nor does the report draw attention to Gonzalez failing to give Ong a more relevant number to call at American Airlines, instead of futilely holding on to it throughout the flight, and it fails to speculate about any motive she might have had, such as conducting a trace on the call.
The Amy Sweeney voice’s call, fudged as either an impossible cell-phone call or a seatback call and reported
117 exclusively by the F.B.I.; the Ong voice’s call, made to a consumer sales desk with the apparent intention of getting it recorded, and held there without being passed to a more useful number: the chicanery evident around these two unprecedented Flight 11 phone calls is, in addition to the pre-flight telephone surveillance of Mohamed Atta, another indication that the events of 9/11 were not a lucky fluke pulled off by Islamic suicide murderers on the very day that NORAD was conducting an exercise that included simulated hijackings.134 Given these apparent deceptions, and the admitted nonconnection of the Barbara Olson caller to the department of Justice, we have to suppose that security-state insiders forged the calls. So, why in the case of Flight 11 did they not have the aircraft speed covertly to its homing beacon
pre-fitted into the North Tower with everyone aboard immobilised by gas? Why would plotters bother to stage the flight attendants’ calls? As we saw above, this was the first hijacking in 15 years, and it had to be established that • • Islamic hijackers were aboard, they had committed atrocities, thereby
showing that they were not planning to land the plane
118 after some negotiations, and so indicating their suicidal intentions; and • no one aboard knew how the hijacking had been
carried out, thereby skirting the question of why no alarms were issued by any of the airline pilots. Establishing by the Ong and Sweeney calls the presence of foreign hijackers would automatically assign control of the crash site to the Pentagon, and crimes committed on board would give legal jurisdiction to the F.B.I. and not official accident investigators. The in-flight reports of crimes by foreign attackers were, therefore, more than a shock-and-awe strategy devised by the military’s psychological operations (PSYOPS), they were the vital pretexts for an ensuing cover-up. Subsidiary, but also important, was the voices’ lack of knowledge of how a hijack had been carried out: this would fit with the authoritarian mentality that presumably designed the operation. The hated public had no right to know anything about such things and possibly get ideas, so neither the Sweeney nor the Ong voice (and no other 9/11 phone voice) gave any inkling of how the hijackings had been carried out. Believers in the 9/11 legend were left to make wild suppositions about the hijackings that were just as fantastic as any ideas expounded by “conspiracy theorists”
119 (see the numerous unsupported assumptions in the 9/11 Commission Report’s accounts of how the hijackings occurred). The presentation of the Ong voice’s narration (as reported at second and third hand) is predictable enough: Ong’s supernatural calm, the suspicious absence of any hubbub among the passengers in coach where she supposedly sat or stood. The 9/11 Timeline cites a credulous, cultbuilding news report: “As Flight 11 approaches New York and the World Trade Center, it appears to be quiet on board. Vanessa Minter, one of the employees receiving Ong’s call, later recalls, ‘You didn’t hear hysteria in the background. You didn’t hear people screaming.’ In a composed voice, Ong repeatedly says, ‘Pray for us. Pray for us.’” This contradicts the Nydia Gonzalez call to AA operations, which indicated that business class passengers had been moved to coach.135 They would have been fully aware of the horrifying events that had occurred, and traumatised by Mace, making the absence of passenger hubbub or phone calls even more unbelievable.136 Of course, the Ong voice’s lengthy call is implausible because it should promptly have been redirected within moments of making a futile connection with a ticket-sales office. But the super-calm scene depicted in the reverent
120 reports is doubly implausible, considering the bloody mayhem that had supposedly broken out in business class on Flight 11, and the presence among coach passengers of the traumatised passengers from business class. Moreover, there is something the Ong voice reportedly mentioned that suggests false information: the presence on Flight 11 of Mace pepper-spray. In the words of a sales website: “A one-second blast of 17% pepper spray to the face of an assailant will induce immediate coughing, choking and nausea as well as dilating the eye capillaries resulting in diminished vision. In addition, pepper spray causes the … mucous membranes to swell resulting in difficulty in breathing and causes an intense burning skin sensation.” The Ong voice confirmed the unbreathability of the cabin air, presumably circulated into coach from business class by the air conditioning
think there’s Mace… that we can’t breathe”, we hear it say on the brief recording. So how were the hijackers supposed to breathe? In a carefully-planned hijacking action that intended to use Mace sprays to subdue passengers and crew in a restricted space, any hijackers would be well-advised to wear gas masks in order to protect their ability to control those on board and to fly the plane into its target. A website for anti-globalist demonstrators notes of imminent
121 police Mace-gassing actions: “Often clues are the police deploying their gas masks.” And that’s outdoors. In the restricted space of an airliner’s first-class compartment it would be even more vital to have protective breathing equipment, yet it is absurd to imagine hijackers passing through airport security carrying cumbersome gas masks. This is another clue to the deception.138 For a flight-attendant to make a telephone call to anyone on the ground was against regulations: in an emergency the cabin crew were supposed to communicate by interphone only with each other and with the cockpit. The Ong voice carefully covered this during the recording period by saying: “The cockpit is not answering their phone.” That authorised the flight attendants’ two long narratives. The Ong and Sweeney voices were praised and given posthumous awards for their calmness and professionalism, but their script did not make sense. As far as we know, they never explained how the alleged hijackers gained access to the cockpit, beyond the Ong voice’s vague “jammed the way up there”. FAA rules required that the cockpit doors remained closed and locked during flight139. Amidst eerie calm, the Sweeney voice reportedly said that the alleged hijackers had stabbed two flight attendants in business (first) class and slit the throat of a business-class passenger, killing him.
122 In addition, according to an FAA memo produced on September 11, the voices said someone shot business-class passenger Daniel Lewin. This seems to have been a case of overenthusiasm by the voice-simulators or a typical confabulation by their alarmed listeners, and had to be withdrawn.140 It is reasonable to assume that stabbed flight attendants, as well as horrified passengers, would have been screaming and shouting outside the cockpit door. In spite of this, the pilots never alerted ground control to an emergency while the cockpit was still free to communicate with ground control, although there was supposed to have been a smell of Mace, a possible gunshot, stabbings, spilled blood, an outcry in First Class, and presumably frantic interphone calls to the cockpit. At the very least, the pilot or co-pilot should have been able to key in the emergency alert code, or possibly another covert signal that has remained classified. We grope around for an explanation of such an unlikely scenario: we are forced to wonder whether perhaps the pilots, crew and passengers had all
been gassed, or were simply absent, and remote-control homing equipment was guiding the silent plane either to a covert base or directly to its homing beacon in Manhattan while tele-operators forged the phone calls and pilot
123 announcements. Such a scene seems incredible, but it’s not
our idea: that was the kind of plan the crazed Pentagon chiefs of staff proposed to President Kennedy in the Cuba crisis --- and his rejection of it may have been a contributory factor in his later assassination (see Northwoods p.p. xx-xx).141 The passengers are strangely absent from the accounts given by these two disembodied flight-attendant voices, which said that all four (or five) of the hijackers locked themselves in the pilot’s cockpit. Whether this is even physically possible or not, the Ong voice did not know “who’s up there”, and the coach-class and even businessclass passengers apparently remained ignorant of the mayhem and the hijacking. Incredibly, they were only aware of what Amy Sweeney supposedly called “a routine medical emergency” in business class that the cabin crew (those who had not been stabbed) were calmly dealing with in the Kean/Zelikow presumptive thriller. This explanation overlooked the released recording of Nydia Gonzalez speaking to AA operations and telling them that the Ong voice had said all business class passengers had been brought back into coach. We are supposed to believe that passengers (who reportedly rebelled on Flight 93 and mentioned rebelling on Flight 175) by contrast remained totally compliant on Flight
124 11 in spite of a former Israeli special forces member, Daniel Lewin, being either stabbed or shot to death and flight attendants being bloodily killed or badly injured near the cockpit door, as the 9/11 telephone voices told it through their warped human relay chain. In this narrative, how would the horrified remaining cabin crew allay the passengers’ fears, while tending to the injured or completely absenting themselves to indulge in long, futile calls on the telephones at the rear of the plane? Were the passengers all cowed into silence by the “bomb with yellow wires attached” that the Sweeney voice ostensibly said one of the hijackers brandished (although the Ong voice, supposedly located just a few feet away from Sweeney, said the men were all locked in the cockpit)? There were about 76 passengers sitting unsupervised in business and coach while the alleged hijackers were locked away. Nobody shouted or screamed behind the Ong voice in the initial four-minute clip of it that’s available. All of them sat facing seatback phones. No terrorist had hijacked a U.S. commercial aircraft anywhere in the world since 1986,142 and a voice over the public address system ostensibly had announced “If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet,” and no passenger called 9-1-1?
No one felt the need to alert a
125 loved one on the ground? No one with an urgent appointment felt a need to reschedule it? The official account of Flight 11 is implausible, even without the fudged evidence of the Amy Sweeney voice’s call and the bizarre destination and duration of the Betty Ong voice’s call.
THE ONG RECORDING
It’s amazing that in spite of AA operating a corporate lock-out and cover-up of their own internal communications, the four-minute Ong call still surfaced to be paraded before the public, with an AA flight attendant ostensibly not knowing what flight she was working on (echoing her colleague Sweeney). Clearly, the powers that be wanted the U.S. public to listen to it --- prima facie, an extraordinary collaboration with terrorists on the part of the U.S. government. Readers should listen to the tape, and if convinced by it, remember that all the call recipients were convinced by the voices they heard. However, there are a string of reasons for not being convinced by the Ong recording, among them these: 1. We know from the Moussaoui evidence that the
Olson and Beamer calls (if they happened) were forged.
126 2. The war machine has Hollywood audiovisual
capability and the Ong recording is sound-only, so it would be that much easier to fabricate convincingly. 3. American Airlines had both a corporate cover-
up and a lockout in place and yet this recording got out. Ergo: the U.S. war machine wanted the public to hear it. 4. It is only four-minutes long: conveniently
brief, whatever the explanation. 5. In the Ong recording, the AA personnel
painstakingly trying to identify Ong are not qualified to take her call and unable to decode her jump-seat seat reference (R3), being reservations personnel, but the Ong voice seems oblivious of this problem. 6. They do not redirect her call, but hold it
for over 25 minutes, unable to help her in any way, which suggests that they were temporising while awaiting the result of a trace, and thereby indicating that they suspected fraud. 7. The Ong call should have been redirected to
the FBI, the FAA, the military, or AA cabin services at Boston, but was not: ditto above. 8. There are no passengers audible in the
background, no reported phone calls were made by them,
127 and yet multiple atrocities are supposed to have occurred, with Mace making the air unbreathable. 9. Ong feels free to make a call far longer than
any other cabin crew member aboard other rogue flights, in spite of having the injuries and deaths to attend to and 76 passengers to pacify, suggesting that her futile call has ulterior motives. 10. In most versions of the call transcript, Ong
first refers to her flight number as 12.144 This could be a slip if the return flight from LA was to be 12 (as uniquely asserted by WorldNet) or next day’s flight out, but it is also the same slip that the Amy Sweeney voice reportedly made, hinting at collusion. 11. Ong's reference to Mace (and Gonzalez's later
repetition of it) is not consistent with unprotected hijackers. 12. The Ong voice fails to use recognised
aviation code-words that convey to colleagues the gravity of a situation145. 13. The Ong voice admits that the crew has called
no one else about a hijacking, and yet she is speaking to an incredulous ticket sales office. As Nydia Gonzalez demands (in minute three): “Who’s calling reservations?” thereby denoting the inappropriateness
128 of the call. And her colleague asks: “Have you called anyone else?” to which the voice replies “No”. 14. If the Ong call was indeed made using a
Claircom seatback telephone, automated equipment at AT&T’s Claircom surveillance office should have monitored, transcribed or recorded it, since it contained more than one trigger word, including “hijack”.
AMERICAN FAILS TO SUPPRESS THE CALLS
We have seen that the Ong and Sweeney voices were vital for establishing a terror crime and handing to the Pentagon and the F.B.I. control of the crash site. These overriding priorities are illustrated by the complete failure of American Airlines in its efforts to suppress the calls. It should have been easy enough for AA to eradicate from history calls that occurred entirely in-house, having been made (ostensibly) by AA employees and received by other AA employees146: such expurgations happen every day within the heirarchical despotisms of huge commercial corporations. It is notable that on this occasion the world’s largest airline, carrying nearly 100 million passengers a year, failed to control its own information. The telephone calls
129 emerged into a blaze of media publicity in spite of a deliberate and immediate cover-up attempt by American’s bosses. Their response to the calls was immediate and damning: terrified for their share-price, their immediate instinct was to lie, deceive and cravenly cover up and yet the calls were foghorned around the world after being collected and transcribed by U.S. government agents.147 The revelation of American’s cover-up took a long time to emerge. It was nearly three years later, in June 2004, when relatives of the victims were astonished to hear a new tape recording played to them by the F.B.I.. The Sweeney voice conveniently had not been recorded by automated equipment at AT&T’s Claircom surveillance center, but a call to senior management relaying its details had. Pledged to secrecy by the F.B.I., the shocked relatives nonetheless passed on some of what they had heard to the New York Observer. For them, the cover-up was scandalous because it failed to prevent the other hijackings (the very failure for which Z. Moussaoui was condemned to prison for life). In the 9/11 Timeline’s account: • 08:21 AM: American Airlines Flight service
manager Michael Woodward is listening to [the voice of] Flight 11 attendant Amy [her nickname] Sweeney on the telephone, and he wants to pass on the information he
130 is hearing from her. Since there is no tape recorder, he calls Nancy Wyatt, the supervisor of pursers at Logan Airport. Holding telephones in both hands, he repeats to Wyatt everything that Sweeney is saying to him. Wyatt in turn simultaneously transmits his account to the airline’s Fort Worth, Texas, headquarters. The conversation between Wyatt and managers at headquarters is recorded. All vital details from Sweeney’s call reach American Airlines’ top management almost instantly. However, according to victims’ relatives who later hear this recording, the two managers at headquarters immediately begin discussing a cover-up of the hijacking details. They reportedly say: • “Don’t spread this around. Keep it close”,
“Keep it quiet,” and “Let’s keep this among ourselves. What else can we find out from our own sources about what’s going on?” One former American Airlines employee who has also heard this recording recalls, “In Fort Worth, two managers in SOC [Systems Operations Control] were sitting beside each other and hearing it. They were both saying, ‘Do not pass this along. Let’s keep it right here. Keep it among the five of us.’”148 Apparently, this decision prevents early and clear evidence of a hijacking from being shared during the
131 crisis. Gerard Arpey, American Airlines’ executive vice president for operations, soon hears details of the hijacking from flight attendant Betty Ong’s phone call at 8:30 a.m., but apparently, he does not learn of Sweeney’s call until much later.149 Victims’ relatives will later question whether lives could have been saved if only this information had been quickly shared with other airplanes.150 The internal cover-up went beyond the already rigorous ‘lockout’ imposed in emergencies to freeze all information. In the words of the 9/11 Commission report, the AA lockout procedure “acknowledges an emergency on the flight and isolates information so that the case can be managed by top leadership at the airlines in a way that protects information from being altered or released” (emphasis added)151. Obviously the lockout would have included the warning calls from AA cabin crew on board Flight 11 and would have prevented them being released to the public. Note that lockout is a standard procedure that automatically witholds information from release. So, not only did American Airlines’ management institute a lockout that froze the hijack warning calls, they also decided among themselves to suppress the reports (either real or set up for a test) of the U.S.A.’s first
132 hijacking in 15 years. In other words, American Airlines operated a double lockout. Its standard emergency lockout procedure froze the hijacking warning calls and kept them unreleased by the corporation. In addition, the linemanagement on the day took a deliberate decision to suppress them. The relatives have condemned this double-lockout policy. But their condemnation has distracted attention from the remarkable fact that in spite of management’s determination not to release the hijack warnings to the public, and moreover to suppress them internally within the corporation, American Airlines ultimately was powerless to do so. Instead, the F.B.I. immediately knew about or found out about the calls, thereby by-passing or penetrating both American’s corporate lockout and its decision to suppress the calls internally. The Bureau took control of the calls away from American Airlines, a violation of corporate confidentiality that must have been ordered from the top. Only the leadership of the Department of Justice could have ordered the next step: the Bureau almost immediately released detailed accounts of the calls. Such release of highly confidential corporate information that a very large and powerful corporation wanted kept secret could only have stemmed from a political decision at the highest level.
133 Agents could not without such authorisation have assembled from interviews with American employees call narratives that they then turned into the most publicised hijack warnings in modern history. Here is another stark contradiction in the official 9/11 story: American Airlines was determined to suppress the calls, but the department of Justice arranged for their sensational release. When we learn about the F.B.I.’s own cover-up, our suspicions can only mount. The Bureau violated American’s lockout152 and cover-up to interview AA manager Michael Woodward about the call from the Sweeney voice, assembling its own exclusive interpretation of what was said. The Bureau then slapped a gag order on him, ensuring that only the F.B.I.’s authorised version of the call report would be published. CNN reported in the wake of the events: • The [Los Angeles] Times reported officials at
American Airlines said information about the phone call was turned over to the FBI. • “The FBI has told us not to discuss
anything,” said airline spokesman John Hotard. • Officials at the FBI also declined to discuss
the call, The Times said.153
134 Lost in this murky episode is the possible original and valid motivation for American Airlines management’s coverup: suspicions, or even direct knowledge, of call forgery. Call forgery could have been detected by Claircom headquarters in Seattle, but AT&T gave no evidence about it to the 9/11 Commission.
WAR GAMES CONFUSION
The air traffic controllers are supposed to have been befuddled by the 9/11 calls and the errant aircraft, as depicted in the Kean/Zelikow-inspired propaganda movie United 93, which was released by Universal Studio owner General Electric, like all the big 9/11 players another huge Pentagon contractor. How on earth did the FAA run the world’s biggest air transport system? It had 44,039 employees, nearly 18,000 of them air traffic controllers skilled at reading radar screens. It had some 600 radar and communications towers. On 9/11 the FAA was juggling some 4,166 individual aircraft. It succeeded in grounding every single one of them in a short time, yet it seemed unable to get anyone on the phone to the National Military Command Center in line with its statutory duties. The multiple military exercises being conducted on
135 that day evidently confused both civilian and military operatives, indicating that the 9/11 plotters --- Islamic or otherwise ---- were privy to the Pentagon’s most confidential plans. The military’s opening response to the first report of a hijack was revealing in this regard: at 8:37:52, Boston Center ATC reached NEADS, the air force command. This was ostensibly the first notification received by the military--at any level---that American 11 had been hijacked. • FAA: Hi, Boston Center TMU [Traffic
Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out. • • test.154 Let’s replay that: when the F.A.A. made its first tentative approach to the vast U.S. military machine about a hijacking, the very first words uttered by a responding military officer were: “Is this real-world or exercise?” On 9/11, many responsible persons must have been asking either themselves or others the very same question. In fact, we don’t have to speculate: a few print-media outlets offered NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise? FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a
136 glimpses of the phenomenon, as recounted by History Commons’ 9/11 Timeline: • 08:38 – 08:43 AM When Boston flight control
first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11, personnel there initially mistake it for a simulation as part of an exercise. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place, later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [USA Today, 4/18/2004; Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004] The day’s exercise is in fact scheduled to include a simulated hijacking later on. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design it. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of this exercise he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.” In the ID section, at the back right corner of the NEADS operations floor, technicians Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson, and Maureen Dooley,
137 react to the news. Rountree asks, “Is that real-world?” Dooley confirms, “Real-world hijack.” Watson says, “Cool!” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold, who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he first hears of the hijacking, in the minutes after NEADS is alerted to it, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” [ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] At 8:43 a.m., Major James Fox, the leader of the NEADS Weapons Team, comments, “I’ve never seen so much realworld stuff happen during an exercise.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] What better way to fake hijackings than during organised military simulations of hijackings? Moles could use the parallel air-traffic control systems owned by the military and the secret service to manipulate the blips on the screens and hack into telecoms systems to produce voicecloned phone calls without needing to provide any explanations to out-of-the-loop colleagues, who would think they were “cool”. The former Griffiss AFB at Rome, NY, is headquarters of NEADS, the north-east regional command, which was conducting Vigilant Guardian and other exercises. Griffiss (now known
138 as Rome) houses the USAF’s major research and intelligence-
gathering laboratory, and conducts surveillance of 500,000 square miles of territory. The supposedly hijacked Flight 11 apparently changed course and flew some 30-50 miles directly towards the base. When Flight 175 sighted Flight 11 (see the Flight 175 calls, below), the two planes were about 140 miles from Griffiss/Rome, where NORAD commanders were conducting their inter-agency anti-hijacking exercise. The four airline pilots, two in each aircraft, were ex-armed forces and could have been participating in a multi-agency reality-based trial of the official response to a multiple hijacking attack. The Kean/Zelikow report made no mention of the glaring possibility of Flight 11’s (or 175’s) scheduled participation in an exercise. The course changes that preceded the supposed hijackings seem to have been a set of course deviations, intended to test the military, that instead went ‘live’. But if their brief and confidential participation in military exercises suddenly went seriously wrong, why did the pilots not give the hijack warning? Surely the explanation is that the pilots had been ordered not to give such warnings for the very reason that their change of course was intended to alert the defence system on its own. According to the official story, the chief pilot had plenty
139 of time to give the alert. It asserts that the captive pilot flipped a switch to allow the alleged hijacker’s giveaway announcement on the public address system – “We have some planes” – to be overheard by ground control, and kept flipping it throughout the flight. The state of Massachussetts gave chief pilot John Ogonowski a posthumous award for this finger-tip performance. But if Oganowski could flip a switch to alert controllers to a PA system announcement, he would earlier have performed the momentary act of keying in the 7500 “hijacked” code or pressing the alarm button, thereby ending the controllers’ apparent bafflement. As for the supposed hijacker statements, they could have been transmitted from anywhere within the airtraffic control zone.155 Postulating that American and United airlines were collaborating secretly with one or more multi-agency exercises that day would explain more than the absence of hijack warnings from the pilots. It also would explain the AA management’s reported decision to suppress the internal hijack warning that supposedly was being relayed to them from Flight 11. If American was part of the exercise that day, their decision to suppress the unexpected hijack warning was not just a knee-jerk reaction intended to protect the corporate share price. It would have arisen
140 instead from the managers asking themselves exactly the same bewildered question that we know military commanders were asking themselves at the same time: “Is this real or exercise?” That doubt would provide an excellent rationale for hurriedly suppressing the first warning. WTC 1, the North Tower, was by far the most lethal of the three strikes, and was accompanied by multiple other explosions, according to multiple witnesses.156 Casualties could have been fewer if the New York authorities had not failed to brief emergency telephone operators properly. “The FDNY ordered both towers fully evacuated by 8.57, but this guidance was not conveyed to 9/11 operators and FDNY dispatchers, who for the next hour often continued to advise civilians not to self-evacuate.”157 Following the North Tower impact, the mass media channels were smoothly getting eye-in-the-sky helicopters into the air to show the world the hole in the side of the North Tower (and incidentally positioning themselves to get grand-stand views of the impending spectacular South Tower explosion). Their routine mobilisations stood in stark contrast to the apparent impotence and indecisiveness of the $600 billion-a-year military.
None of the approximately 76 (non-hijacker) passengers in business and coach called anyone using the seatback phones that were in front of their eyes aboard Flight 11. The only signs of life noted in the U.S. government evidence consist of an “unknown caller” switching on a cell phone.
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The U.S. government shows an unknown caller on Flight 11 pressing On button on their cell phone, but the number of the cell phone(s) involved is not provided.
143 Few cell phone users are aware that even if they only switch on their phone, its activation is reported to the cell-phone network computer, or OSS, assuming that a connection with the ground network is momentarily possible.158 However, to connect with the ground in 2001 a cell phone needed to be below about 8,000 - 10,000 feet altitude. Making a connection at a higher altitude could only occur “by fluke” according to AT&T representative Alexa Graf, speaking in 2001.159 Even if we accept that in this case the tiny one-to-three watt transmission of a cellular handset reached the ground about six miles below, through the magnetic field emanating from the dense network of about 60-100 miles (90-140km) of wiring in the walls of the aircraft, the U.S. government evidence still does not provide the telephone number of the subscriber as it did in the case of Flight 93 caller Ed Felt. Nor, strangely enough, is the name of the subscriber available. Perhaps someone in the DOJ felt that some sign of life among the passengers should be included, even in the form of four frail and anonymous coded bleeps, so that the memory of scores of innocent airline passengers should not be utter silence. However, their evidence was implausible.
THE EVIL GENIUS RESONATES
The bogeyman, Mohamed Atta, had to be heard in the U.S. government’s telephone evidence at the Moussaoui trial, in order to send shivers down the backs of the jury members. Atta’s voice made no in-flight phone call; instead he is supposed to have spoken from the occupied cockpit, carelessly having left a switch in the wrong position as he supposedly attempted to make an announcement to the cabin passengers. Nevertheless, the trial was entirely political, so Atta’s alleged transmission was thrown in with the telephone evidence anyway. ------------------------------------------------
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The U.S. Moussaoui prosecution’s telephone data included radio transmissions supposedly sent by Mohamed Atta from Flight 11, but in fact the transmissions could have come from another aircraft, or even from the ground. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The explanation for the Atta announcements was that the trained rogue pilot, carrying out a long-planned and expensive terror action with the help of a foreign intelligence service such as Iraq’s, made a mistake and accidentally spoke to air-traffic control instead of to the
146 passengers. This requires us to believe that the pilot did not know about the dedicated passenger address handset fitted in the cockpits of all large passenger aircraft, but instead chose to use the radio management array and made a wrong setting on it.
CAPTION: Passenger address handsets are installed in all large passenger aircraft. A dedicated handset is fitted in the cockpit for the use of the pilots and at a cabin-crew station. Illustrated here is the Airbus 380 system, similar to the one installed on the Boeing 767 and 757. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….
CAPTION: A graphic of the pilot’s intercom handset, with squeeze-lever on the shaft, used to communicate with passengers on a Boeing 727. A similar cockpit handset was installed on the Boeing 767 used for Flight 11. It is implausible that a trained rogue pilot would not have known about the intercom handset. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
148 Not knowing about the intercom handset was implausible in a trained pilot, supposed to have been able to navigate his “heavy” into an urban target with deadly accuracy. Nor is it likely that he would have given away his plan to ground control by telling them “we have some planes”. But even if the rogue pilot supposedly did make such mistakes, a further problem lay in the announcement being overheard by other pilots. Nothing defined the announcement as having been sent from Flight 11. It could have come from any aircraft in the air-traffic control zone. The government’s evidence file is ambiguous. The text gives the source as a “radio transmission”, which could have come from anywhere, but also attributes it to a “cockpit area microphone” on Flight 11, which is unprovable, except by a non-existent cockpit flight recording.160 This particular “evidence” file on Atta’s over-air announcements is pure politics, because the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) itself admitted in its Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events that this and the other transmissions supposedly made by rogue pilots on 9/11 were ‘from an unknown origin.’161 Therefore the U.S evidence’s attribution of “We have some planes” to Atta aboard Flight 11 was without basis. Any marine radio user, for example, knows that the source of a radio message is not identifiable except by the transmitter of the message. That’s why
149 operators of aviation and marine radios are taught always to identify and locate themselves when calling. There is no other way to locate them. In other words, the anonymous voice’s overheard message could have come from any aircraft flying in the air-traffic control zone.
VOICES FROM FLIGHT 175
John D. Goeken, an ex-military microwave communications innovator, was the entrepreneur behind the launch of Airfone, the in-flight telephone system installed in United Airlines’ passenger aircraft, in the Orwellian year of 1984.162 The first company to supply an airline with telephones for passengers, it enabled calls to be made in the air as well as on earth, even between aircraft if the caller knew the callee’s account number. Airfones connect with their ground network (or with satellites) by radio; with this double connection option, they fail only on rare occasions, usually involving problems connecting with the network of ground towers and their switching centers, the latter also being likely targets for black-ops hackers.163 At the same time as its consumer launch, Airfone started installing its handsets in thousands of government, corporate, military and fractionally-owned private jets, thereby gaining access to the confidential communications of
150 the U.S. oligarchy and its servants, presumably including the exchange of security-cleared information. By 1999, when GTE Airfone (as it had become) was sold to an investment group, before being sold to Verizon Communications in 2000, the company was described as: “the industry leader and the largest provider of airline passenger communications systems. Airfone provides in-flight telephone and data communications to 61 percent of North American commercial aircraft through long-term relationships with Continental, Delta, TWA, United and US Airways, among others, and over 1,300 private corporate aircraft,” or more than 4,000 commercial and private aircraft in all.
Placing speech recognition processors across the U.S. elite’s in-flight calls was an opportunity that would have been irresistibly attractive to those who already monitored permanently the telephone calls of the world. When digitisation made it possible, aggregating a comprehensive database of the elite’s in-flight telephone calls, cherrypicking conversations to translate and transcribe automatically, and even intervening with forged calls to influence the evolution of history, would have been both achievable and necessary. The operations surveillance centers of the in-flight telecoms duopoly, Pentagon-linked Verizon Airfone, based near United Airlines in Chicago,165
151 and Pentagon-linked AT&T Claircom, based near Boeing in Seattle,166 were therefore central to the 9/11 telephone calls. Moreover, their cellular systems experienced overload
following the “Flight 11” impact on the WTC north tower, meaning that when two-minute cell-phone calls were supposed to have been made from Flight 175 over New York City by two passengers, the calls were doubly improbable, since many New Yorkers were experiencing a cell-phone black-out, probably as a result of system overload by millions of cell-phone calls made in the wake of the first impact.167 The Hanson and Sweeney calls (see below) would have had to connect first with the cellular system through cells in the area affected by a system overload black-out, augmenting the arguable impossibility of of a high-speed air-to-ground connection in the first place. Flight 175 was operated by United Airlines, and carried Verizon Airfones like the rest of the United fleet. As with American’s Flight 11, which allegedly took off from the same airport, Boston Logan, no reliable evidence has been provided to the public that the Flight 175 terror suspects were ever at the airport on the morning of 9/11.168 It was reported that no surveillance cameras watched public areas at the airport, the U.S.A.’s 18th busiest, in sharp contrast
152 to other airports that were so equipped.169 There were, therefore, no video or still images of any of the suspects at the airport. Only a car rented in the name of one of them was found in the parking lot,170 with documentation inside it that became one element of a remarkably voluminous papertrail that conflicted with the U.S. administration’s claims that the men acted covertly.171 The telephone calls alleged to have come from Flight 175 occurred only after the aircraft had disappeared from the view of air traffic controllers and airport officials. Analysts, both official and independent, have examined closely the supposed movements of the aircraft, which nonetheless remain unclear, a lack of clarity that extends to the U.S. court evidence regarding the phone calls.
THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT’S ALERT
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION The voice of an unidentified flight attendant, allegedly from Flight 175, reached United Airlines’ California office twice. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The Boeing 767 aircraft that was United Flight 175 on 9/11 flew only a quarter full, carrying a scattering of 56 passengers. However, even with this small complement it is inexplicable why so few of the passengers made calls in the crisis situation that ensued, considering that they were sitting in a hijacked plane staring at Airfone seatback phones easily operable with a credit card.
154 The pilots reportedly gave no emergency or hijack warning, and the first report of a hijacking was a long time coming. Last radio contact with the plane was 08:42 AM, the presumed time of the supposed hijacking. And yet no voice saying it was a member of the cabin crew reportedly called United for another 10 minutes. The U.S. government’s evidence says no one knows the identity of the voice that eventually made a brief hijack report to United’s West-Coast office in San Mateo County near the international airport of San Francisco, California. (Flight 175’s destination was Los Angeles, California). Nevertheless, the voice gave the hijacker/atrocities information so critical to the official “foreign attacks” scenario. The 9/11 Commission wrote: “[A]t 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.”172 A Commission staff statement issued in January, 2004, named the flight attendant as Robert Fangman. This seems to have been speculation.173 Evidently neither the FBI nor the
155 9/11 Commission could get a name for the flight attendant from Marc Policastro, although it seems strange that he would have failed to follow the usual procedure (painstakingly followed, for example, in the case of Betty Ong) of definitely establishing the identity of a caller who had such an alarming message and who might easily have been a prank caller, not calling from an aircraft at all. Conversely, it would have been equally strange that a teleoperator forging a call would have failed to give a name as part of a stolen identity. We note that the anonymous flight attendant called not once, but twice, giving Policastro two opportunities to extract an identification. Perhaps Policastro detected signs of fraud, a suspicion that could only have been reinforced by his (and his colleague’s) failure to connect when calling the number back. Policastro’s suspicions could explain why he gave no name for the caller, since he would have considered any identity given to be as fraudulent as the rest of the call; as we have already noted, no hijacking had been reported in the U.S.A. for 15 years. That Policastro failed to reach the flight attendant could, on the other hand, be explained by the need to provide a member’s number for the callee, an Airfone requirement for incoming calls to its handsets on aircraft. Another explanation could be that the anonymous
156 speed-dial calls did not happen on-board Flight 175, but somewhere in the Airfone’s ground network, with forged records either simultaneously or later hacked into the computer. In that case, Policastro’s attempts to return the calls would necessarily have failed. Taking into account the points mentioned above, his failure to achieve a return call remains a prima facie sign of fraud in the incoming call. If we postulate, like the 9/11 Commission, that there was a hijacking of Flight 175, the lateness of the flight attendant’s warning calls could be attributed to the delay involved in herding all the passengers and cabin crew to the rear of the aircraft where, the evidence’s seat-row numbers indicate, the calls were made. Only after this move was complete would it have been possible for a flight attendant to use a seatback phone to give the hijack warning, using a confidential speed-dialling code. However, this still does not explain the absence of an identity for the caller, because Airfone handsets (like the Claircom ones) had a slot through which a credit card had to be swiped in order to activate the telephone and make a call. The credit card data would have been captured by Airfone’s OSS and by the credit card supplier’s computer, along with the card owner’s identity. So, even if Mark Policastro could (or would) not identify the caller,
157 possibly because he doubted the authenticity of the call, the caller’s identity should have been available to the department of Justice when it assembled the telephone data for its evidence in the Moussaoui trial, using data supplied by the telecoms and credit card suppliers. It is, therefore, inexplicable that the identity of the warning caller is not available.
158 THE HANSON VOICE ……………………………………………………
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: The Hanson voice’s second call exceeded the crash time. …………………………………………………… The U.S. Moussaoui prosecution evidence shows Flight 175 coach passenger Peter Hanson’s voice calling his father for the first time 10 minutes after the supposed hijacking, and talking to him on an Airfone handset fitted at row 30 for seats CDE. The voice reportedly gave the hijackers and atrocities warning so vital to the official story. As with
159 the Amy Sweeney voice, it was originally reported as a cellphone call, and appears first to have been reported to the media by the F.B.I. The call occurred at the same time as the anonymous flight attendant’s, suggesting that both individuals called only after hijackers had herded them to the rear of the aircraft. This would accord with the official story, except for one glaring anomaly. There were 55 other passengers aboard, who presumably had also been herded to the back, all of them staring at telephones that could easily put them in touch with loved ones, employers, or officials on the ground. And yet we are to believe that only Hanson and two others actually made such a call. One of the other passengers alleged to have made a call clearly did not (see below), so in fact only one other passenger besides Hanson, out of 56, actually felt strongly enough about being herded to the back of a scheduled transcontinental flight by a short Arab hijacker to call home. Admittedly, Airfones could only handle a handful of calls from one aircraft at a time, but there remained 10 minutes of the flight in which about 40 frantic people using different phones could have made one-minute calls of the sort made by the anonymous flight attendant. And yet only two, the voices of Hanson and one other passenger, Brian Sweeney, reportedly put through
160 calls. And, of course, both their calls made the vital reference to hijackers, along with that of the anonymous flight attendant. Until the Moussaoui trial evidence, there was always the possibility that other callers aboard Flight 175 might have reached their loved ones with private messages that never received public attention. But the U.S. evidence presumably is drawn from in-flight telecoms data, otherwise it could not provide the detailed timings and the seatback identifications (where they apply). The evidence informs us, therefore, that only two (it claims three) passengers were alarmed enough to call home, or work, or the F.B.I., or anyone else, by the sight of hijackers, rumours of atrocities, and being herded to the unoccupied rear of the plane for unknown reasons. Possibly the passengers were being intimidated by menacing hijackers whose clothing was perhaps drenched in blood from their gory murder of the pilots (reportedly claimed by the Hanson voice). But in that case, we would have to explain how Hanson, Sweeney and the flight attendant succeeded in making their calls. It is not as if each individual made one surreptitious call and quickly hung up. They were taking their time. The flight attendant made three calls, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Sweeney each made two. Mr. and
161 Mrs. Hanson ostensibly had their baby girl with them and clearly would not have dared to use the Airfone if it had entailed any extra risk. It remains a mystery why none of the scores of other passengers made, or even attempted to make, an in-flight call to the ground. The only plausible explanation is the unthinkable one: the reported calls from Flight 175 were forged. Hanson’s calls were originally attributed to a cellular telephone, not an Airfone, for example by The New York Times: “At some point, men armed with knives stabbed flight attendants, a cell phone caller from the plane said in several brief calls to his father in Connecticut.”174 Such attributions have to be taken seriously since the introduction of caller identification, whereby the number of a caller usually is shown on the read-out of an appropriately-equipped telephone set, or on the screen of a cell phone. However, it is relatively easy to forge caller ID, and black-ops telecoms experts would have no difficulty with the task. “Caller ID is trivially easy to forge,” writes an expert. “There is no significant security preventing injection of false Caller ID into the phone network. Indeed, many legitimate businesses routinely inject ‘forged’ Caller ID into outgoing calls — e.g., so that if customers call back, the call is routed to the correct
162 department, not to a site operator.”175 This practice, which is not illegal, the police call “spoofing”. So, even if a call recipient such as Lee Hanson was convinced that he recognised his son’s cellular telephone number on his caller ID screen, he could nevertheless have been deceived. There was an obvious advantage in spoofing the caller IDs of alleged distress callers from rogue aircraft on September 11th, 2001. Seeing the familiar number would reinforce a belief in the mind of the call recipient that: 1. handset; 2. 3. the owner of the cell-phone was calling; what they were saying was believable. their loved one was calling them from a known
The caller ID of a cell phone thus softened up the call recipient for getting outrageous news about an aircraft hijacking of the sort that had not happened for 15 years in U.S. airspace. The cell phone number verified the call with an immediacy that an unrecognised Airfone number could not achieve, allowing maximum psychological impact to affect the caller. Again, the U.S. government evidence abandons cell phone calls in the case of Hanson, instead alleging that the Hanson voice called from an Airfone handset at a particular
163 location on the aircraft, but the pattern of the Hanson voice’s first call suggests otherwise. The brevity of the
alleged call, a mere 90 seconds (a half to one-third the duration of an average call), is anomalous, because Airfone calls normally presented no time restriction, and we assume that no other passengers were clamouring to use the handset. On the other hand, it would be an impossibly long call by cell phone. The fact that the call was reported to have been abruptly cut off is even more anomalous, because service interruption was unusual with Airfones. The telephones that were believed at the time to behave in this erratic manner aboard aircraft flying at an altitude of under about 10,000 feet were cell phones. Only cellular telephones were believed (erroneously) to function so poorly at the outer limits of their network capabilities. We have argued that, besides the instant impact of caller ID, the advantage of an in-flight cell phone call’s imagined characteristics --brevity and random interruption --- could be used by call forgers to reduce the chance of detection. For example, if their callee asked a question to which they could not convincingly reply, they could simply cut off the call, thereby attributing it to perceived problems with a cellular telephone aboard a plane. Similarly, they could gain maximum psychological shock value by imparting the horrifying
164 hijacking-and-atrocities information and then cutting off, leaving the callee listening in horror to a dead phone. By 2006, when the Moussaoui evidence emerged, pico cell technology was being expensively installed by airlines to facilitate in-flight cell phone calls, which increased the pressure to abandon the attribution of the reported 9/11 distress calls to cell phones. This helps to explain the conflict between the brevity and interruption of the call data in the U.S. evidence, and the evidence’s assertion that the calls were actually made by Airfone.176 The Hanson voice’s longer second call presents a further problem. It supposedly occurred at 09:00:03 AM and lasted 192 seconds, or three minutes and twelve seconds, meaning the impossible, namely that the Hanson voice’s second call lasted until 09:03:15, exceeding the 9/11 Commission’s crash time of 09:03:11 by four seconds. It also overshot other widely reported crash times, such as the seismically measured time of 09:02:54, or the 09:02:59 recorded by the National Institute of Science and Technology, by 16 and 21 seconds respectively.177 Computers operate on logic and cannot lie, therefore we have to conclude that the data supplied concerning the second call by the Hanson voice is either erroneous or fraudulent.
THE HANSON CALLS’ CONTENT
Real people heard the Hanson voice making its calls, by all reports, although as in the case of the Amy Sweeney voice, it seems to have been the F.B.I. who originally gave the story to the mass media. Hanson’s parents may indeed have received calls from a voice they thought they recognised, but it is implausible that they could have remembered the content in the narrative shape in which it entered the official legend. That’s what is peculiar about the calls reported by Lee Hanson, an official, of Easton, Connecticut, in which he learned that his son Peter, his daughter-in-law, and the grand-daughter who was named after him were in alarming trouble on board their plane to Disneyland: • At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named
Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: ‘I think they've taken over the cockpit. An attendant has been stabbed, and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines---Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA.’ Hanson then called the Easton police department and told them what he had heard.
166 Typically, the Hanson voice’s words are not reported in indirect speech, but in quotes, as if we are listening to the caller himself. In this account, the call recipient is a cypher. We forget that he was getting the most shattering telephone call it is possible to imagine. His son’s voice told him that an entire family of his descendants was aboard an aircraft high in the sky that had been taken over by ruthless murderers. As we shall see concerning Flight 93, Ms. Lisa Beamer reported that similar news sent her into a darkened room under sedation. Ms. Lisa Jefferson, a hardened Airfone telephone operator with 18 years’ experience, described suffering a nervous breakdown as a result of her 9/11 call from Flight 93. Lee Hanson, on the other hand, apparently was capable of immediately giving a lucid account to his local police headquarters, taking less than seven minutes to convince them that the first hijacking in 15 years had just been reported in a personal call made from a cell phone on an aircraft six miles high. We know that his alarming and unexpected report took only a few minutes, because Hanson Sr. was quickly off the line and ready to receive a second call.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call
from his son Peter: ‘It’s getting bad, Dad---A
167 stewardess was stabbed---They seem to have knives and Mace---They said they have a bomb---It's getting very bad on the plane---Passengers are throwing up and getting sick---The plane is making jerky movements---I don't think the pilot is flying the plane---I think we are going down---I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building---Don't worry, Dad---If it happens, it'll be very fast---My God, my God.' The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television and... saw a second plane hit the World Trade Center.”178 This second report was translated into direct speech, complete with telegraphic hyphenation of the sort pioneered by “spontaneous bop prosody” author Jack Kerouac. As
reported, the call was dense with information: a stabbing, knives, Mace, vomiting, jerking aircraft, no pilot, fatal nosedive, suicide crash, sudden death. It is hard to imagine a more action-packed three-minute telephone call, culminating in a ghastly fatality, replayed on television almost instantly in all its flaming horror, and again innumerable times thereafter. As a father and grandfather, Lee Hanson understandably would have been in profound shock, devastation and grief
168 when he regurgitated to visiting F.B.I. agents a confused version of reports he saw that morning on the television. Even the president of the U.S.A. and his head of the National Security Agency subsequently denied that they had any foreknowledge of passenger aircraft being used as guided missiles, so Lee Hanson was clearly mistaken when he attributed such foreknowledge to his stricken son, basing his account on the picture of his son’s ghastly end that he had recently seen on his television. Note, however, the way the Kean/Zelikow 9/11 Commission Report polished the father’s single-source hearsay report into a suspenseful monologue by his son that could have been written by pop thriller-writer Clive Cussler. As we read it we forget that it came from a traumatised parent confusedly recounting a voice that spoke from somewhere else in the tones of his son. We saw similar narrative shaping, or “spin”, in the F.B.I.’s exclusive account of the Amy Sweeney call from Flight 11. News reports say that the F.B.I. was at work in the Hanson call report as well. The reports originated in Associated Press’s Washington DC office, in story by-lined by AP’s Karen Gullo and John Solomon, and datelined 20:55 PM on the evening of 9/11. The headline reads: Experts, U.S. Suspect Osama Bin Laden, Accused Architect Of World’s Worst
169 Terrorist Attacks. So, within hours (even minutes)179 the public’s attention was being turned away from the most motivated and capable perpetrators to the patsies from Afghanistan, and Hanson’s story was already being rushed into the repertoire before the dreadfully bereaved man and his grieving wife, Eunice, had had a chance even to get a night’s sleep. The relevant text went: • A businessman, his wife and young child
aboard a United flight that left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center twice called his father in Connecticut as his plane was being hijacked, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. • The official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down. • The man was identified as former Easton,
Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport.
170 “He called to his parents' home, and so in
that way they were so together in that moment,” the Rev. Bonnie Bardot said.
So the source of the Hanson call report was “a law enforcement official”. This would either be someone in the Easton police department, originally telephoned around 8:55 AM by Lee Hanson, or someone in the F.B.I. That the informant wished to remain anonymous suggests they were with the notoriously secretive F.B.I. The call report was endorsed by the local church minister, whose attribution of it to a cell phone must have come from the source, Lee Hanson. Note that the screaming woman was absent from this original report. Such a horror-movie refinement no doubt accumulated with time, as with a fishing yarn.
THE BRIAN SWEENEY VOICE
Mr. Brian Sweeney is another caller alleged by prosecutors to have made two calls from Flight 175 just minutes before it allegedly crashed into the WTC South Tower at an estimated 590 m.p.h., creating a spectacular ball of fire that became the keynote image of the 9/11 events.
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: Brian Sweeney’s voice called 15 minutes after the alleged hijacking.
…………………………………………………….. Again, the calls ostensibly from Mr. Sweeney reported hijackers, and they were initially attributed to a cellphone. The Washington Post reported five days after the events:
172 Brian Sweeney called his wife Julie: “Hi,
Jules,” Brian Sweeney was saying into his cell phone. “It's Brian. We've been hijacked, and it doesn't look too good.” His wife, Julie, was not at their home in Barnstable, Mass., so he was talking into the answering machine. His voice sounded calm, but his message was fatalistic . . . . “Hopefully, I'll talk to you again, but if not, have a good life. I know I'll see you again some day.”181 By 2004, CNN was not committing to which type of telephone the Sweeney voice used for leaving the (undisclosed) recorded message: • "About three-and-a-half minutes before the
doomed United Airlines Flight 175 struck the trade center's south tower [the voice of] Brian David Sweeney, a 38-year-old former U.S. Navy pilot from Barnstable, Massachusetts, made two phone calls. Sweeney left a message for his wife, Julie, on his home answering machine, then he called his mom. ”We assume he was calling from the back of the plane, because [his voice] said, 'They might come back here. I might have to go. We are going to try to do something about this,’” Julie recalled. The message Brian Sweeney[‘s voice] left his wife on
173 their answering machine was a farewell, she said. ”If things don't go well, and it's not looking good, I want you to know I absolutely love you," Julie Sweeney recalled [his voice] saying. Julie Sweeney said she thinks the main reason Brian[‘s voice] made the calls was to ‘let us know where he was, what was happening, and to give us his final love and wishes for our lives, because he knew he was on a doomed flight,’ she said The Sweeneys described the two phone calls to FBI agents who visited them the day of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Sweeney, who flew an F-14 in the Persian Gulf War and was a U.S. Navy flight instructor for the Navy in Miramar, California, was working for a Defense Department contractor, Brandes Associates.182
The 9/11 Commission’s phone attribution for this call -- to a cell phone or a seatback handset --- is unknown, because its report does not mention Brian Sweeney (nor did the earlier Congressional investigation’s report)183. The pattern of the calls, however, is recognisable: 1. an early report of a cell phone call,
presumably attributed by his wife, the recipient of
174 the unreleased recorded message, or his mother, who took a call, or possibly by visiting F.B.I. agents; 2. 3. followed by non-attribution; followed by attribution to a seatback phone.
The sequence again fits with our hypothesis that the caller IDs of familiar cell phone numbers were spoofed in order to achieve maximum impact for the shocking news of the first hijacking in 15 years. We see again in CNN’s report how assiduous the F.B.I. was about visiting the call recipients on the very same day. You can’t help wondering why the Bureau was so punctilious about invading callees’ grief to investigate their telephone calls, as if in this case a man giving tragic messages of farewell to his wife and mother could possibly reveal anything that would help them to identify the perpetrators. The shocked and bereaved mother was not going to remember much of such a devastating call. However, the agents might have been keen to reinforce the crucial message in the women’s highly suggestible grief-stricken minds: their loved one had promised to fight back --- “We are going to try to do something about this” --- however hollow the promise sounded when the aircraft was already in a four-and-a-half minute accelerating power-dive towards its target.
175 Indeed the aircraft’s supposed vector presented a further problem for the authenticity of the Brian Sweeney voice’s call as a genuine in-flight telephone call. Although New York Center air traffic control reportedly could not identify the aircraft it was watching on radar, air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia nevertheless was able to report that he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”
Absolutely unheard of also would be the
making a successful telephone call, since the human body would have difficulty enduring the rapid loss of altitude, and the Verizon Airfones on the Boeing 767 relied on either ground relay towers or satellite reflection in order to maintain a stable connection, and at low altitude and maximum speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would make air-to-ground communications unreliable, if not impossible. Nor could a cellular call have worked; radar research shows that the plane did not reach an altitude at which a cell phone could make contact until 9:02, or one minute before its reported end.
CAPTION: Flight 175 altitude profile, as recovered from radar evidence by the National Air Transportation Safety Board and carried on the National Security Agency’s website, shows the precipitous decline of the aircraft towards its reported end. It did not reach 10,000 feet, the feasibility limit for cell phone calls to the ground, until 9:02, or one minute before its reported crash.
THE ACE BAILEY VOICE
Perhaps this review of the alleged calls from Flight 175 seems overly sceptical, searching out discrepancies for the sake of it, as researchers hostile to the official legend are supposed to do. “The conspiracy theorist seizes on any apparent inconsistency,” as a BBC film-maker and 9/11 cultist expressed it.185 Any concerns of this sort should be dispelled by the case of the Ace Bailey phone calls. ------------------------------------------------
U.S. COURT EVIDENCE ELECTRONIC FILE
CAPTION: Ace Bailey’s wife never received the phone calls shown in U.S. government evidence.
The U.S. government evidence file shows first-class passenger Bailey, a former ice-hockey star, making three successful connections with his home telephone for 22, 25 and nine seconds. A fourth call is listed as “unconnected”, distinguishing it from the other three that made a connection, in other words somebody at his home answered the first three calls by picking up the telephone and completing the connection. The call data shows Bailey ignominiously relegated to the rear of the plane and phoning from seat row number 32, using the centre seatback phone serving seats C, D and E. The evidence’s claim of phone calls from Bailey was new. There was no mention of tragic phone calls from Bailey in the wake of the 9/11 events, either in official press releases from Bailey’s old team, the L.A. Kings, or from the National Hockey League,186 and nor did the same-day report from hockey-mad Canadian national broadcaster C.B.C. mention his calls.
But after five years had passed, western
Canada’s mass-media monopoly, Canwest, asserted: “Knowing Bailey's indomitable spirit, the onetime World Hockey Association player and longtime NHL scout didn't go quietly. After trying unsuccessfully three times to contact his wife
179 Kathy on the phone, Ace would have come up swinging.”188 So, according to CanWest, Bailey made only three attempts to speak to his his wife of 28 years, not four, and failed to get through in each instance, something the U.S. evidence file contradicts, with its three connected calls of nine, 22, and 25 seconds’ duration. Ace Bailey was held in affectionate regard by many hockey fans, and his calls would have been of interest to them, even though they were never reported in the wake of the events. However, no one would have been more interested than his long-time wife, Kathy Bailey, who told Doug Krikorian, staff columnist on the Long Beach Press Telegraph on September 10th, 2007, that she watched the TV in amazement at home as a second plane crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001. “We had no idea that Dad was on that plane,” says Kathy. “I had no thought he was in harm's way because his plane was headed for L.A. I would soon find out the awful truth.” She seemed unaware that her government thought her husband’s voice had spoken to someone twice at their home, once for 22 seconds, again for 25 seconds and a third time for nine seconds, just five minutes before the end. She said she sat watching TV at the very home he was calling, and where, according to the U.S. government,
180 somebody answered the phone three times within the span of a few minutes. “ ‘At first, I just couldn't believe it,’ says Kathy Bailey. ‘It's just hard to accept your husband walking out the door, and never returning. I kept expecting him to return home any moment, but it never happened.’” Nor, evidently did his calls from Flight 175.
FLIGHT 175 DISAPPEARED
New York air traffic controllers were able to watch the altitude of Flight 175 as it (or possibly a switched aircraft, as in the Pentagon’s Northwoods plan) descended rapidly towards Manhattan, because they had a transponder reading from the aircraft, albeit a deceptive one. The transponder signal normally provides the controller with an aircraft's flight number, altitude, airspeed and destination. A blip representing the airplane appears on the controller's radar screen with the information beside it. And yet it remained a mystery for hours which aircraft had hit the WTC South Tower, partly because of Flight 175’s apparently changing identity signal. In this regard, it’s worth noting that similar identity switches were revealed by European aviation officials in connection with CIA
181 “extraordinary rendition” flights (taking unknown prisoners to unknown locations where torture is permitted). CIA flights used both bogus call signs and bogus aircraft details in flight plans, according to a report in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times189 quoting the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The CIA aircrafts’ identities ranged from Learjet 35 executive jets to C-130 transport planes and MC-130P Combat Shadows, “which are specially adapted for clandestine missions in politically sensitive or hostile territory.” The newspaper’s investigation into flight plans showed that “during the time [one] plane was in the air, USAFE (US Air Forces in Europe) changed some of the flight plan timings and at the same time the registration changed. The aircraft metamorphosed into 40112E but continued to be a Learjet 35 and was still JGO 80.” The transponder call-sign JGO belonged to a defunct Canadian bucket-shop carrier. The newspaper cited other examples. On 9/11, this kind of identity trickery may have added to FAA confusion, but as we noted in the case of Flight 11, such confusion could also be attributed to NORAD’s antihijacking exercises. Furthermore, there’s an inexplicable delay in the captain of Flight 175 reporting the “suspicious transmission” he had heard some 27 minutes earlier on
182 departure. Both pilots were ex-armed services: we may surmise that they were involved in the military hijacksimulation exercise under way that morning, having been covertly briefed as part of NORAD’s “multi-agency” operation to ignore “suspicious transmissions” and to go off course for a few minutes to simulate a hijacking. The “real-world or exercise” confusion was highly successful, an aspect of the events that the propaganda movie United 93 left out. The movie, portraying a contrived, conspiracy-theory based “meticulous reconstruction”190, preferred to include Flight 175’s thrilling near-collision with Delta Flight 2315 that is on record, when Delta’s pilot and his controller took desperate measures to avoid “Flight 175”, passing within an unheard-of 30 metres of it. To sceptics the failure of “Flight 175” to register Delta 3215’s existence would fit with “Flight 175” actually being a remote-controlled plane, the hidden operators of which perhaps had no knowledge of the other aircraft, relying instead on air-traffic control to steer other heavies away from their wildly deviating cruise-missile-type aircraft, just as controllers did in this case.191 There was an opportunity for a plane-switch along Northwoods lines. When Flight 175’s pilot, on instructions from air-traffic control, made visual contact with Flight
183 11, flying 10 miles to the south, both planes were about 140-150 miles from former Griffiss AFB, near Rome, NY, home of NEADS Sector Operation Command Center (SOCC) “responsible for monitoring the skies above 500,000 square miles of the Northeast”.192 In other words, both aircraft were on the doorstep of the U.S. air force. Consider Griffiss, a.k.a. Rome. The USAF consolidated all four of its research laboratories into a single Air Force Research Laboratory there in 1997. The base specialised in the development of technologies for: • command, control, communications and
intelligence systems; • • • • devices; • • • • • • surveillance systems; advanced radars; super conductivity; infrared sensors; cryogenics; artificial intelligence applications; and advanced computers and microchips; communication devices and techniques; software engineering; intelligence gathering and processing
184 related technologies.
There’s no mention of this highly relevant information in the 9/11 Commission Report. In 2001, Griffiss/Rome was the brains of the integrated anti-hijacking exercise NORAD was conducting on the morning of September 11th---and commanding officers later claimed that NORAD knew nothing of the whereabouts of Flight 11, a heavy that was more than 100 miles off course and heading towards New York City at eight miles a minute. NORAD supposedly only heard about Flight 175 at 09:03 AM just after it allegedly had crashed into the South Tower. Even allowing for human folly and intellectual torpor, this stretches credulity, but the supposed disappearances would be an opportunity for a plane-switch. Ground control told Flight 175 to avoid Flight 11, then at 08.42 AM, Flight 175 veered off its authorised course and disappeared. A controller reportedly said: “… looks like he's heading southbound but there's no transponder no nothing and no one's talking to him.” However, reportedly the transponder was turned off for only about 30 seconds, then changed to a signal that was not designated for any plane on that day,193 the kind of trick later exposed as being used habitually by CIA rendition aircraft to deceive air-traffic controllers. This “allow[ed] controllers to
185 track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it.”194 Three years later, a NORAD commander put it slightly differently, telling the 9/11 Commission that Flight 175’s transponder was never turned off. Despite this, other evidence confirms that the aircraft could not be identified and that Flight 175 was lost. The confusion spread by the previously-arranged multiagency exercise (or exercises) caused immediate doubts about Flight 175’s status, even though controllers informed NORAD within one minute, at 08.43, that Flight 175 had been hijacked. (Note that it had taken them anything up to 30 minutes to brand Flight 11 hijacked.) Nevertheless, after the Flight 175 alert, traffic controllers were still in doubt. It was another four minutes before the pilot of US Airlines Flight 583 told ground control regarding Flight 175 “I just picked up an ELT [emergency locator transmitter] on 121.5 it was brief but it went off.” The controller responded, “O.K. they said it's confirmed believe it or not as a thing, we're not sure yet…” (Emphasis added.) And 10 minutes later a flight controller still exhibited confusion when he told other aircraft in the sky regarding Flight 175, “We may have a hijack. We have some problems over here right now.” These lingering doubts evidently arose from the confusion caused by NORAD’s inter-
186 agency anti-hijacking exercise, which looks exactly like a perfect smoke-screen for inside plotters. Flight 175 then vanished. The plane that smashed into the WTC South Tower remained unidentified, and for many sceptical minds, still does. The head of Massachussetts Port Authority, operators of Boston Logan airport, was not able to establish for hours what had happened to Flight 175. Virginia Buckingham wrote later: • “While we were trying to grasp the cold-
blooded murder of 92 passengers and crew on Flight 11, the changing story of United Airlines Flight 175, another LA-bound flight out of Boston, unfolded. At first we were told that it was the second plane involved in the New York attacks. Then we were told that an American Airlines plane out of Washington's Dulles International Airport had crashed into the trade center tower, and United 175 was safely on the ground. I winced at the effect this uncertainty must be having on passengers' families. Meanwhile, I passed the contradictory information on to the governor's office and the mayor's office. It was late morning before fact was separated from rumor, and we knew that Boston was doubly touched by tragedy. It was United Flight 175, it would turn out, that had been flown into the south
187 tower of the World Trade Center, killing its 56 passengers and nine crew members.”(Emphasis added)195
Ordinary confusion cannot explain the fantastic delays and egregious errors made by the experienced professionals at the FAA in establishing which plane had hit the South Tower. The military exercises may have been a major contributory factor, and their existence could explain why nobody ever got disciplined or fired. Alternatively, an undisclosed stand-down order explained the military inaction. FAA controllers in principle could have kept track of the aircraft the way they allegedly kept track of Flight 11. Instead, there’s little doubt that Flight 175 disappeared, because the FAA was unable to identify this aircraft to the operators of Boston Logan airport (its airport of origin) as the crash vehicle for hours.196 There were several layers of confusion: the hijacking exercise, the actual hijacking, and the possible plane-switch. Added to which, the air traffic manager responsible for Flight 175 was still struggling with Flight 11 and failed to notice 175’s transponder changing message. From the Kean/Zelikow report: • While the command center was told about this
“other aircraft” (Flight 175) at 9:01, New York Center
188 contacted New York terminal approach control and asked for help in locating United 175.197 So, according to the official story, Flight 175 vanished just a couple of hundred miles from biggest, highest-financed, most advanced radar centre in the world. And it was during this disappearance that the phone calls supposedly occurred. The confusion over the identity of Flight 175 (and of the American Airlines flight from Dulles) possibly enabled an exchange of aircraft, some kind of Operation Northwoodsstyle rendez-vous, in the air. Afterwards, there was a no effort by the authorities to use pieces of debris to establish definitively the identity of the plane that hit the South Tower. It was assumed to be Flight 175, and the passenger body parts were received by New York doctors for DNA analysis from the FBI crime site at Fresh Kills, where they were assumed to have been delivered with the rest of the ruins in a manner that many readers might think did not belong to a proper crime investigation.198
THE BREVITY ISSUE
The Moussaoui phone call evidence confirms the anomalous brevity of the calls ostensibly made from Flight 175 after it had disappeared. Seatback phones ostensibly had
189 allowed the flight attendants’ voices on American 11 to continue their commentary throughout the rogue flight, one of them for half an hour. By contrast, the anonymous flight attendant’s voice ostensibly coming from Flight 175 only managed to speak for intervals of 75 seconds and 31 seconds before being “cut off”. All the Flight 175 calls were cut short, lasting respectively nine, 22, 25, 27, 31, 60, 75, 99 seconds and the longest, 192 seconds or just over three minutes (continuing for four seconds after the crash inferno). When attributed in the media, most of the calls were said to have been made on cell phones, and the calls’ brevity could have been meant to simulate cell phone calls, thus allowing them to remain short, allowing rogue teleoperators to evade detection, while giving crucial information about hijackers, killings, Mace and passenger resistance --- although as in the case of Flight 11, the Mace reference again seems to be an error, because hijackers without gas masks in a restricted area could be impeded from carrying out their hijack or flying the plane.
CAPTION: A piece of aircraft fuselage (centre) lies on top of WTC 5. It is invariably referred to as a piece of Flight 175, but it is not visible in videos falling from the South Tower explosion, and no reconstruction of the aircraft took place under the auspices of official accident investigators. (Public domain) ………………………………………………………………………..
VOICES FROM FLIGHT 93
Voices from Flight 93 gave rise to the “Let’s Roll” slogan used by the Pentagon to recruit for the Afghan and Iraqi invasions, and yet strangely absent from the innumerable accounts is the sprawling global corporation that owned the aircraft’s seatback-telephone equipment, its enabling ground masts and switching centers; that registered the calls, and ran surveillance of them at its Airfone Operations Surveillance Center in Oak Brook, Illinois, on the outskirts of Chicago. Verizon Communications was the result of the biggest corporate merger of all time in the year 2000, and employed more than 200,000 people world-wide with an annual turnover approaching $70 billion. Verizon was part of the sweeping privatisation of monopoly state services that Mrs. Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had facilitated across the Angloplex in the 1980s. Its boss, Ivan Seidenberg, recently raked in more than $21 million annual remuneration, or nearly $430,000 a week. Seidenberg was a “Major League Pioneer” for Bush 43’s second election fix in 2004, personally arranging a minimum $100,000 contribution, as did Verizon V-P Peter Davidson. (See Palast; bibliography.)
192 Verizon managed its image carefully. Its public relations company since its inception in 2000 through a massive merger of Bell and GTE had been Burston Marstellar, part of the huge WPP advertising conglomerate. Burston Marstellar operatives had handled Exxon’s image in the wake of the vast and uncleaned-up Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska, that remained bogged down in the U.S. courts after decades. They successfully kept Verizon’s name out of the 9/11 Commission’s report. In spite of its deregulated status, Verizon on September 11th, 2001 was effectively part of the U.S. government. It was sharing all its telephone records with the U.S. government in covert surveillance of most of the U.S. population,199 and was busy executing an ongoing $1.4 billion contract to upgrade the U.S. government’s sprawling communications systems.200 The huge upgrade included the Department of Defense and its vast globe-spanning headquarters, the Pentagon, which generated an average of 200,000 telephone calls and more than a million e-mails every day.201 Verizon thus had unparalleled access both to the Pentagon and to the sprawling, increasingly totalitarian, surveillance state and, as Seidenberg told a March, 2001 conference: “Eighty-three percent of our footprint is now digital.”
193 Furthermore, Verizon’s subsidiary, Verizon Airfone, counted military jets on its corporate customer list, along with top companies and fractionally-owned private jets held by members of the elite. The 9/11 Commission report mentions neither Verizon Communications nor Verizon Airfone, in an inquiry into hijackings in which Airfone provided the only passenger link to the ground. While the report snuffled nose-to-the-ground across the Middle-East following up leads extracted by torture from Islamists, two key witnesses sat on their polo ponies back in Virginia chatting with the Pentagon brass and secret-state executives.202 No matter how much 9/11 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton complained about the contempt their amplified election pamphlet had generated among a significant sector of the U.S. intelligensia; no matter how they complained of underfunding, of the lies officialdom told them, that they were “set up to fail” and so on, the pair failed to explain the omission of Verizon and AT&T, each absolutely essential to a genuine inquiry into the events. (Kean and Hamilton; bibliography.) It is certain that Verizon Airfone’s operations surveillance center would have covertly monitored all the Flight 93 distress calls, although their long-standing
194 employee, Lisa Jefferson, implicitly and speciously asserted in her book that they did not (see below). Somewhere inside Verizon Airfone would have been an opportune place for plotters to originate Flight 93’s unprecedented stream of calls ostensibly coming from seatback handsets. In Verizon Communications’ teeming global jungle of computer systems, wires and cables, radio waves, satellite systems, software management teams, and multiple in-house and government surveillance operations there must have been wide scope for black ops technicians. And not only inside the corporation: covert operatives could also have performed in the field, beaming transmitters at the Airfone mast network while computer hackers handled the data records fixes. In addition, Verizon Airfone had 3,400 corporate, military and government aircraft on its select client list, giving the company unique access to the business of America’s oligarchs, as they flew over our heads, tiny dots soaring thousands of feet higher than the peak of Mount Everest, playing masters of the universe while polluting the rarefied and little-understood upper atmosphere.203 The deafening silence of the two Congressional inquiries and the Kean/Zelikow commission about Verizon Airfone was either indicative of hushed-up secret operations or it meant that all the commission’s members were dupes in
195 the hands of Commission manager Philip D. Zelikow, an intel expert and Bush regime insider who had written extensively about history-changing catastrophic attacks on the U.S.A. in advance of the 9/11 events.204 What is certain is that on September 11th, 2001, Verizon Communications, and in particular its subsidiary Verizon Airfone with its thousands of high-echelon executive-jet and military customers, was part of the U.S.A.’s secret state apparatus. Any genuine inquiry would address itself first to the question of what happened inside Verizon Airfone on 9/11. OFFICIAL CONTROL It’s inherently very difficult for the masses on the ground to know much of anything about what happens in the sky, which puts the U.S. government in control of the 9/11 narrative and hampers any ethical quest for facts and truth. Indeed, practically everything we think we know about Flight 93 is sourced from within the U.S. government. • Its radar flight-path record comes from the
FAA and the Pentagon. • The recordings of air-traffic and military
pilot communications are government-controlled. • The so-called “black boxes” are handled by
the U.S. government, along with the cockpit voice recording and the flight data.
196 The phone call details in the U.S.
government’s Flight 93 trial evidence came (presumably) from Verizon Airfone, a Pentagon-integrated corporation. • Flight operator United Airlines only
participated in a panel on aviation security and gave no other evidence. (9/11 Commission, seventh hearing.) • The ground area of Flight 93’s presumed
disappearance was controlled almost immediately by the FBI, which laid down a cordon sanitaire that kept all the bereaved and the media at least a quarter of a mile away. • The Shanksville crash zone was decreed to be
a crime scene, which legally sidelined the National Transportation Safety Board, although that too was government controlled. • The Pentagon controlled the presumed debris
of the aircraft and the sparse remains of the presumed passengers. • The Commander-in-Chief, Bush 43, gave
evidence in camera without oath and in the company of Vice President Cheney; and military leaders changed their stories over time.
197 No video cameras monitored Boston Logan
airport’s departures zone. Building any kind of an accurate picture out of such official information (or lack of it) is impossible, which is why demands for another, more powerful independent inquiry with a wider remit will not go away.205 The scant material we have that was not government controlled is wildly at odds with the official story. For example, early video shots taken from TV’s eye-in-the-sky helicopters in the zone of Flight 93’s presumed disappearance showed at least one other crater and widelystrewn debris, discrediting the Pentagon’s version of the aircraft’s end: that it crashed at full-speed at an angle of 45 degrees, burying itself 10 metres deep in friable soil, leaving no wreckage.206 Congress promptly engaged in a warmaking rant that was the spur for the ensuing hypnotic cult of Flight 93 heroism, in its turn a basic prop of the whole deluded “war on terror” that became the war on Afghanistan and the war on Iraq according to a declaration of war against any state on Planet Earth that was not “with us”. (See Flight 93 Revealed; bibliography.) A key dossier for the heroism pluggers was the batch of more than 30 phone-calls asserted to have come from 12
198 individuals who were supposedly aboard Flight 93 during its alleged last half-hour of existence. We have to remember that all the evidence that Flight 93 actually flew during this time is tangled and incomprehensible, and includes a well-sourced disinformational claim that the rogue pilot somehow managed to get permission from Reagan International airport in Washington D.C. to change the aircraft’s flight plan to aim it towards Washington D.C.207 A few witnesses claim to have seen an aircraft in United Airlines’ livery flying low over their area, but their accounts do not match, and while they apparently saw something unusual, eye-witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, and it could easily have been any dummy aircraft painted in the right colours (as per the Pentagon’s Northwoods plan, or Bush and Cheney’s quoted ploys). Other aircraft of different sorts were spotted by rural residents, too,208 and the area involved was remote, being more than 35 miles (50km) from the nearest movie theatre. There is suspicion that the entire site might have been rigged, again something that was envisaged in the Northwoods plans. So, with the strong proviso that the evidence for Flight 93 ever having flown past Pittsburgh and come to grief anywhere near Shanksville is entirely government controlled, we’ll try to make sense of the passenger and
199 crew calls alleged to have come from the plane during that time, and not from voices inserted into the Airfone network in the form of digital ones and zeros.
‘LET’S ROLL!’: THE RECRUITMENT PAY-OFF AND THE BEAMER VOICE
Swinging the American masses decisively behind a long war on Islam was the point of the 9/11 operation, at whatever point on the scale of scepticism you stand, from the secret state conniving at a genuine foreign plan, or actively designing and operating it and covering it up. There had to be a recruitment outcome for the Pentagon warcomplex, and covert PSYOPS planners probably wrote one in. Whether it departed late from Newark, N.J. late or not, ditching Flight 93 probably was always going to be the last act of the drama, its target cunningly left unknown to dangle in the collective mind, an unfinished action and a lingering threat for the future. As in any last act of a drama, Flight 93’s last half-hour provided the cliff-hanging climax along with a powerful psychological gut-punch that shouted: Join your citizen comrades in destroying Islam! Kill Arabs now! Bush 43 repeatedly plugged this line. For example, in 2006 he said on television that the Flight 93 heroes made the “first counter-attack to World War III”.209
200 In the winter of 2006-7 amid the 9/11 perpetrators’ ongoing campaign to escalate America’s imperial expansion into an assault on Iran, the Airfone operator-supervisor Lisa Jefferson put her name on a book that purported to tell her story of the Todd Beamer voice from Flight 93. In a deliberate religious double-entendre, her handlers named it: Called. Superficially, the book was a carefully packaged tearjerker aimed at a readership of credulous 9/11 cult-members, many of them, presumably, women. It provided as little information as possible about the circumstances surrounding the call, but the sheer necessities of story-telling obliged the authors210 to impart the basics, and the intel people who apparently redacted it did a further trim, until the narrative action took place in a peculiar limbo of nameless colleagues, shadowy players and indeterminate spaces. Nevertheless, it is impossible to win a reader’s interest in a narrative without furnishing a minimum of information, and any information offers internal evidence that may be analysed by a critical reader. Jefferson’s little confessional book merits a close look, because in spite of themselves, the authors provided support for the U.S. prosecution’s court evidence that showed the Todd Beamer telephone call was a fabrication.
201 The Beamer call had never been believable from the outset. It all boiled down to Jefferson, an evangelical Christian, who in her eighteenth year of working as a supervising operator at Verizon Airfone’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois on 9/11, said she took charge of a distress call from United Airlines Flight 93 in which she learned salient details of an alleged hijacking from the voice of Todd Beamer, a passenger in coach who had been relocated to the rear seats. At the end of the lengthy call, she ostensibly overheard the caller shouting to rebel passengers: “Let’s Roll”, which in the hands of his telegenic widow became the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan for the military invasion of the middle-East. Like nearly all the 9/11 calls, the Beamer voice was being relayed by a single-source hearsay witness with no back-up evidence. Such tales are not normally given any credibility by jaundiced editors, lawyers and US district-court judges, the latter having a particular aversion to hearsay and to witnesses being coached. But in the case of Jefferson, they ignored the rules. Jefferson’s call report popped up whole and fully approved from inside the vast Verizon Communications corporation, which had its head in the bowels of the U.S. government’s most sensitive communications systems,
202 including the Pentagon’s, and was collaborating with the federal administration at the time in a covert programme of mass-telephone surveillance, unauthorised by any court orders. We know this, because another huge telephone company, Qwest, reportedly was approached to join Verizon Communications, Bell South and others in the surveillance by the National Security Agency at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, long before the 9/11 events.211 At Verizon Airfone (its
obsolete prefix was GTE) Jefferson had been dealing routinely with senior government and military officials who were among Airfone’s thousands of corporate and government jet customers. They were evidently Airfone’s core business
because service to them was to continue in 2008, after obsolete Airfones had been removed from commercial airliners to make way for pico-cell technology that enabled cell phone calls.212 In other words, Jefferson was a trusty with positive security clearance, probably under a non-disclosure agreement --- added to which her husband also worked as a computer manager in the same headquarters building, almost certainly under positive security clearance too. Both would be subject to the strict compartmentalisation prescribed by management security practice, separating them from other high-security aspects of Verizon Airfone’s business, and
203 making senior managers the only personnel in control of the whole communications picture, something worth remembering when Airfone management acted strangely over releasing the “Beamer” call synopsis to the grieving widow (see below). Despite her many years of experience dealing with the USA’s most powerful people, Jefferson neglected to taperecord her famous incoming call, for which she gave the lamest excuse: “I had not had time to press the switch in my office.”
Her operators’ stations would almost certainly
have had their own recording switches, and next-door in Verizon Airfone’s Operations Surveillance Center speechrecognizer technology would have triggered the recording of any hijack warning automatically. The absence of any recording of the Beamer voice is implausible in the context of a high-tech corporate operation which was closely integrated with the military, and which was a world-wide airways communications hub via satellite. Everyone was faceless and anonymous in Lisa Jefferson’s account: her senior managers, her colleagues in surveillance, her subordinates including the one who originally took the call, even the flight attendant aboard Flight 93 who ostensibly imparted to her the airplane data through the Beamer caller. Jefferson did not name a single colleague who witnessed her handling of the call, although
204 she claimed a large crowd formed around her as she dealt with it. Furthermore, she failed to note when the call began and ended and in 2006 remained vague about its duration (about 15 minutes). Jefferson did not initially take the incoming call.214 In her account she admitted that one of the eight operators she supervised from a window-office overlooking the call centre took it, but Jefferson never named her. Phyllis Johnson’s name appeared briefly in a single news report on September 22nd, 2001215 and vanished from the record.216 It’s perplexing that Johnson disappeared, because she could have been a vital back-up witness for the Beamer legend. However, it’s possible that Johnson bowed out early because she believed the distress call was a fake. Jefferson quoted her saying: “You’re for real, aren’t you?” as if she had found the caller unreal at first. Inexplicably, this super-calm caller had made Johnson “traumatized”, and unable to continue the call.217 Perhaps Johnson’s real motivation was to hand off what she thought was a fraudulent call and attend to the other genuine ones that were streaming in from all over the U.S.A. If Johnson had recovered her initial scepticism about the authenticity of the call, she could never have withstood the media pilgrimage on which Jefferson
205 later embarked, which included having herself photographed at prayer. Jefferson and her husband’s lives had revolved around Chicago-based Airfone since its launch. Jefferson had been promoted to operator supervisor in 1999, overseeing eight operators per shift in the call centre. She misleadingly depicted it as a trivial kind of place: “Generally, the Call Center gets bombarded with inquisitive customers or children playing with the phones,” but the truth is that Airfone’s prime business was in the corporate and government jet sector, dealing with high-level expense-account VIPs, not punters in coach, for whom Airfones were too costly, causing them to be little used.218
US Government evidence file
CAPTION: The Beamer call telephone evidence offered by the U.S. prosecutors in the 2006 Z. Moussaoui show-trial was nonsensical, showing different numbers being connected in the identical second. ……………………………………………………………..
Although Jefferson somehow failed to note the time of the incoming call, it has been supplied (although not
207 sourced) by the Moussaoui trial evidence.219 According to the evidence file, someone identified as Todd Beamer made four calls from the Airfone on Row 32 in the right-hand row. The identification must have been deduced from the credit card used to operate the handset, data which is not referenced.220 However, what we do see is unlikely to have been archived by the Verizon Airfone computer. The first two calls attributed to Beamer were as follows:
Time 09:42:44 Duration 0 seconds Time 09:42:44 Duration 0 seconds Number called: (800) 225-xxxx Callee: AT&T Calls terminated upon connection
Both calls somehow occurred in the identical second, presumably using the New button, getting a fresh dialtone, followed by pressing a redial button on the handset, although it is not clear how two calls could be executed in one second. Both calls were supposedly toll-free via AT&T, presumably to an address in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, judging by the area code 225. The calls were simultaneously connected and cut off. One minute later, Beamer allegedly reached his home where his pregnant wife waited anxiously:
Time 09:43:48 Duration 0 seconds Number called: (609) 860-xxxx Callee: Residence Call terminated upon connection
According to this, the caller promptly rang off when someone, presumably Lisa Beamer and not one of the infant children, answered. Oddly, Lisa Beamer never wrote about an incoming call that gave her a dial-tone when she picked it up, except one 16 minutes later at 10:00AM.221 Perhaps she mistook the time, anyway Mrs. Beamer said in her book that she never heard her husband’s voice. In the identical second, according to the evidence file, the caller cut his call, keyed in “0” and made his historic call:
Time: 09:43:48 Duration 3,925 seconds (1 hr 5 mins 41 seconds) Number called: (200) 200-xxxx Callee: GTE operator Line left open222
209 As ostensibly registered by the Airfone computer, and reproduced in the U.S. government’s court evidence, the call was impossible to execute. The caller would have needed to press New and wait for a fresh dialtone, then press ‘O’ and get through to the operator --- all in the space of one second. It’s not credible, but let’s go along with the legend and accept that the Beamer voice’s fourth call was made and that it was answered by Jefferson’s subordinate, the vanished Verizon/GTE operator Johnson. According to Jefferson’s book, the sceptical Johnson held it for long enough to elicit from the caller the basic data about the hijacking and the flight, but strangely not the caller’s name.223 Muting the phone, Johnson imparted the hijacking report and the flight number to Jefferson. “The first thing we needed to obtain was the flight information, the name of the airline and routing of the plane,” Jefferson wrote. But this can’t be true: the call data should have appeared automatically on the screen of the Airfone computer system. We know, because Jefferson wrote later in her account: “While I spoke with the [Beamer] caller, I watched a monitor that showed me the airline, the time, and information confirming that the plane was still in flight.”224 She might have added that the seat numbers also appeared: they can be vital in an emergency, and the U.S. Government evidence
210 cites them with its seatback phone call data. So her subordinate had no need to collect the flight information from the caller, considering that the Airfone computer system automatically provided details of the caller’s flight, right down to his row number in the plane. Either Jefferson was making this up, or she was trying to cover up something else, namely the fact that the absence of on-screen data caused her (or Johnson or both of them) to require a trace on the call. Elsewhere she (apparently inadvertently) mentioned that: “One of the engineers had been tracing the call from the moment Todd phoned for help.”225 We can deduce that the two telephone operators faced a dilemma. A further report of a previously-reported hijack was coming in from this caller, but at first the call did not show the appropriate data on the screen. Jefferson wrote that she ran to operations surveillance, reported the voice-given data, and by implication surveillance ordered an immediate trace on the suspect call. Of course, Verizon has not revealed the outcome of the trace, but we can now deduce, from Jefferson’s own account, that the Airfone call center originally suspected the Beamer call of being faked. If we are to believe Jefferson’s convoluted account, the appropriate data did appear on the screen later, delayed perhaps by a computer-hacking glitch.
211 Jefferson described herself standing next to Johnson, attempting to call Airfone Operations Surveillance Center (AOSC). “I tried to contact the Surveillance Center on another phone, but when there was no answer, I ran over to the AOSC next door. Having memorized the flight numbers [sic], I informed officials that a United Airlines plane had been hijacked, and then I returned to the representative [she means Johnson] in the Call Center.” This is clearly a cover-up of the true purpose of the hurried visit, because there was no need to report a hijacking to Airfone operations surveillance centre, the hub of a world-wide communications centre for the corporate and military elite. Three separate hijacking reports from Flight 93 had gone through the Airfone system up to 15 minutes earlier, and Jefferson as operator supervisor knew about them (see below).226 In spite of this, Jefferson would have us believe that at about 09:46, or about a quarter of an hour after her organization had already been alerted, she left her operator-centre with many calls streaming in, and hurried in person into Airfone Surveillance Center to report a hijacking, and what’s more: left again without ever learning about the co-ordinated 9/11 hijackings and crashes.
212 Let’s consider for a moment Jefferson’s state of ignorance about the 9/11 events. She asserted that neither her TV-watching husband nor the crowd in the Operations Surveillance Center ever told her about the three earlier hijackings, or the fourth that had already been reported 15 minutes earlier, about which she had ostensibly just learned via the Beamer voice. Furthermore, nine minutes before she walked across to the Surveillance Center, an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. Airfone operations might have been monitoring this event, too, because watching the crash from its position circling low over the restricted White House airspace at that time was a massive E4-B command and control aircraft.228 Its manufacturer, Boeing, states on its website that: “The E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post is designed to be used by the National Command Authority as a survivable command post for control of U.S. forces in all levels of conflict including nuclear war.” Significantly it adds: “In addition to its primary mission, secondary missions assigned to the E-4B include VIP travel support.” If this means the actual transport of VIPs, the logical choice for ground-to-air communications for them would be Verizon Airfone (or AT&T Claircom). There is, therefore, a remote possibility that among the many Airfone calls that Airfone operations
213 surveillance centre was monitoring that morning were calls from the E4-B circling over the White House. Here’s the stopwatch timing: 09:35AM (circa) The President’s telecommunications show signs of being jammed during his return trip to Air Force One in Florida.229 09:37AM An aircraft in American Airlines livery hits the Pentagon while an E4-B command and control jumbo-jet circles over the White House.230 09:40AM A nationwide ground-order for all US civil aviation is being implemented. 09:40AM (circa) Cheney warns Bush not to return to Washington D.C. 09:43:48AM Somehow making two different telephone calls in the duration of one second, a voice identifying itself as Todd Beamer aboard Flight 93 calls the Airfone operator. 09:45AM Operator Johnson elicits hijack and flight information from Beamer that should be showing on the computer screen but is not, and imparts it to Jefferson. 09:46AM Jefferson tries to call Surveillance Center next door and gets no answer. 09:46AM Jefferson hurries on foot into the Surveillance Center and alerts them to:
214 (our suspicion) the fraudulent call to which
her operator has alerted her; or • (her story) the hijacking of Flight 93.
We can imagine the scene at Airfone Operations Surveillance that morning that caused Jefferson’s phone call to ring unanswered. Customers in the several thousand airborne business and government jets equipped with Airfones were making a deluge of credit-card calls, many of them possibly requiring operator assistance to plan emergency travel arrangements and accommodation on the ground. The calls were so numerous that Jefferson wondered whether the Beamer call would be cut off.231 How could Jefferson visit this operations surveillance center, with its close links to United Airlines, big business and big government, and not learn of the 9/11 events? It’s inconceivable, and yet she wrote: “I had no idea the hijacking incidents were tragically and inextricably linked,” although she added inconsistently later in her account: “I realized, with a dread certainty, that this hijacking was linked to the tragedy in New York.” This was familiar Jefferson double-speak. It’s unclear in her story whether she knew about 9/11 when she allegedly spoke to Beamer, and it was unclear when she fluffed her
215 story on the Larry King Show on 9/11’s first anniversary. Here’s part of the transcript from CNN in 2002: KING: Did you tell him about the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? JEFFERSON: No I did not, because I didn't know at that time. KING: You didn't know? JEFFERSON: No. KING: So you're totally in the dark here. JEFFERSON: Correct. KING: You're talking to a man on a hijacked plane. Most hijacked planes land, right? JEFFERSON: Correct. KING: So what did he say? JEFFERSON: Well, the reason I didn't know -- I just heard about the two planes that had crashed into the World Trade Center. KING: So you did hear about them? JEFFERSON: Yes.232 This was ‘live’ T.V., so the lone ear-witness to the “Let’s Roll” call had to be handled carefully. In spite of King’s not-so-subtle coaching, Jefferson bungled the interview and a genuine interviewer would have seen the opening and discredited her on the spot. First, she denied
216 knowing anything about the World Trade Center or Pentagon crashes when she took over the Beamer call, a denial which her position at the heart of the Airfone network made implausible. The first crash had occurred an hour before the Beamer voice called, and the second crash 42 minutes earlier. Second, she claimed she had not heard about the third (Flight 93) hijacking, even though it had been reported via Airfone to the F.B.I. 15 minutes earlier and to Airfone’s client United Airlines 13 minutes earlier. Third, she claimed that the reason she had not heard about the World Trade Center and Pentagon crashes, was because she actually had heard about them. Any competent crossquestioning lawyer or authentic news interviewer could have revealed her confusion. Except Larry King blatantly was not seeking the truth about Jefferson. At the time, he was being paid $7 million a year, or $135,000 per week, putting him among the most expensive T.V. (or movie) stars on earth.
Larry King was backing the official story, and the official story required Jefferson to be credible, and not someone who got the facts confused. Here we see in microcosm the larger picture: grossly overpaid media multi-millionaires deluding the U.S. viewing public. By the time she composed her book, Jefferson had not only overheard her colleagues talking about the crashes
217 during the Beamer call, but she had heard about the tower demolitions, too. Amazingly, Jefferson asserted that it was after she had taken over from Johnson the alleged Beamer phone-call that she overheard people talking behind her and: “It was only then that I learned that two planes had actually felled the World Trade Center Towers.” The problem here is that the south tower disintegrated at 9:59AM and the north tower followed at 10:28AM, something Jefferson could not have known at 9:46AM --- even with the help of her religious faith.234 Why does it matter what Jefferson knew? Because in the legend, Flight 93’s passengers are supposed to have been motivated to attack the cockpit by what they learned from phone calls. But Jefferson says she never told Beamer, an alleged attacker, anything about the 9/11 events. The voice made out that he was in the dark, supposedly inquiring: “Do you know what the hijackers want, Mrs. Jefferson? It is money, ransom, or what?” This was a prompt for Jefferson to tell him about the crashes that had occurred at the Twin Towers in Manhattan, and to bring in the FBI agents who supposedly were monitoring the call throughout.235 Instead, in her account she replied disingenuously: “I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know what the hijackers are asking for.” Knowing the suicidal nature of at least two 9/11 hijackings, she
218 nevertheless wrote that she consoled Beamer that Flight 93 could land normally. “Todd and I just kept talking about the plane being landed safely, and we both agreed not to give up.” This was the part of the script that Larry King had been prompting her to deliver when he hinted broadly: “Most hijacked planes land, right?” On live T.V. she had missed the world’s highest-paid interviewer’s careful cue. In her book she made sure it went in. Perhaps we can detect here traces of an original script in which Beamer’s decision to kill Arabs contrasted starkly and valiantly with his earlier perfect innocence and the cooing reassurances of the telephone operator. If so, by forgetting what she was supposed to know Jefferson made a mess of it, and Larry King couldn’t put her right. For believers of the official 9/11 narrative, it would be a mystery why the listening F.B.I. agents did not intervene when Jefferson conducted this “landing safely” deception on her caller.
The incoming call again: after Phyllis Johnson handed it over, Jefferson also thought the alleged caller was a prankster. “His voice was devoid of any stress. In fact, he sounded so tranquil it made me begin to doubt the authenticity and urgency of his call.”237 This recalls the unnatural calmness of the Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong voices
219 identified as coming from Flight 11, or the reading-a-script tone of Cee Cee Lyles’s phone message (see below). In Ms. Lisa Beamer’s much earlier book, she wrote concerning the same episode that Jefferson told her: "If I hadn't known it was a real hijacking, I'd have thought it was a crank call, because Todd was so rational and methodical."238 Note two revelations contained in Beamer’s version from four years earlier:
Jefferson admitted to Beamer that she already
knew about the Flight 93 hijacking, making a nonsense of her story that she rushed next door to report it. • Jefferson did not mention the call-data
missing from the screen, which would have been the main motive for putting a trace on the call.239 F.B.I. agents were monitoring the Beamer call that Jefferson initially identified as a fake. Jefferson wrote notes to "pass on to the Call Center", sure that they would "later be examined by the authorities", but these notes were hasty and neglectful, suggesting that she merely took them to amplify the recording the FBI was already making. Jefferson claimed her notes were “accurate and timely". But, in view of this claim, it is remarkable that she failed to note the vital start and end times of the call.240
220 However, her failure to know how long the call lasted was evidently no accidental oversight. It was vitally important to the official hijacker story, because it fudged conveniently the baffling gap between the end of all communications with Flight 93 (9:58AM) and the four published crash times (9:58AM, 10:03AM, 10:06AM and 10:10AM), as did the absurd duration given for the connection in the Beamer evidence file: an hour and five minutes, or an extra three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 had supposedly crashed into a ball of crushed metal and flesh 30 feet under the ground. Anyway, all communications with Flight 93 ended at about 09:58 AM with the Ed Felt emergency call to 9-1-1. The role of the FBI is incomprehensible in Jefferson’s account. She established at the outset that Beamer’s call was “a call for help”,241 but she reported no instance of
the FBI offering any such help. Instead, a colleague of Jefferson’s (another she named “someone”) handed her a note. It said: “The FBI wanted me to try to determine if the caller could figure out the nationality of the hijackers.”242 This would be a Keystone Cops comedy question, given the ignorance of the caller as described, if it did not also suspiciously resemble a prompt to a teleoperator to give scripted hate-data about Arabs and Moslems.
221 There’s a further hint of ambiguity in the FBI’s role, in the way the listening agents went along with Jefferson’s conflicting advice to the caller: first to stay calm and wait to land, and then to go ahead and break federal law by attacking the cockpit. According to Jefferson, the caller, who started out speaking preternaturally coolly, abruptly blurted to her that: “I think we’re going to jump the guy with the bomb”.243 According to Jefferson, she cooed: “Are you sure that’s what you want to do, Todd?...Well, if that’s your decision, Todd, I’m behind you and I support your decision.” Except that moments before, she had been at
pains to assure the caller that she had no idea what the hijackers wanted and that the plane was going to land normally. Now, she was advocating putting the entire flight
at risk, but Jefferson saw no inconsistency here and never consulted the FBI lawyers who listened on the line. There’s another perplexing aspect of Jefferson’s reported call: although she later received a Verizon excellence award, she happily took official information from an unqualified coach passenger. “I wrote as he spoke. I wanted to make sure the notes I passed on to the Call Center were accurate and timely. Those notes would later be examined by the authorities.”244 These notes flagrantly lacked the vital time data, but they were doubly useless
222 because the caller was a know-nothing passenger in coach. Taking such notes from him was negligent, because the caller allegedly told her that a member of the air crew was sitting right beside him. “That’s how I’m getting my information,” she reported him saying.245 Jefferson never replied: “Please give me the flight attendant”. She never even secured his/her name, although it was s/he who was providing indirectly the answers to Jefferson’s formal questioning from the company's distress-call manual,246 answers that would “later be examined by the authorities”. Perhaps in reality Jefferson felt she was humouring a prank caller while the Verizon trace went ahead, and the FBI recorded the call.247 Lastly, (remembering that U.S. prosecution evidence presented in court showed a genuine call was an impossibility) there’s the question of why the Beamer voice did not want to speak to the pregnant wife, who was waiting anxiously for news at home. The Moussaoui trial evidence suggests that the caller did call Beamer’s home, but cut the call the moment Lisa Beamer (or possibly an infant) replied. In the identical second, he ostensibly called the Airfone operator, and the rest is history. But (again overlooking that implausible timing) we have to reconcile this failure of the husband to contact the wife with Jefferson’s evidence
223 that the caller was now aware his life was in danger. She said the voice made her recite the Lord’s Prayer with him. (Lisa Beamer added the 23rd psalm, too.)248 Then he allegedly cried out his wife’s name, not once but three times. He apparently asked the operator whether she would call his wife “If I don’t make it through this”. When Jefferson offered to patch him through to his home, the caller fussily told her: “No, no. I don’t want to upset her unnecessarily. She’s expecting our third child in January, and if I don’t have to upset her with any bad news, then I’d rather not.” The contrast between a young man facing his end and his refusal to speak to his wife is implausible. Perhaps Jefferson thought so too. The voice’s rejection of her offer to patch him through to home would have reinforced the existing suspicion of fraud. A fake caller would not wish to have the wife hear him if he could avoid it. He had to stay with Verizon, and with the “F.B.I. agents” monitoring the call who gave prompts by hand-written message. By now, Lisa Jefferson must have been more convinced than ever that she was dealing with a fraudulent call, possibly connived at by the authorities --notwithstanding appropriate data having latterly appeared on her computer screen, which itself could have caused further suspicion.
224 So it’s not surprising when we learn that an hour or two later the so-called F.B.I., still operating entirely by telephone, summoned Jefferson to the phone in the Operations Surveillance Center. “None of the agents were [sic] physically in the building at that time. They had all maintained contact via telephone. There were three agents that I was aware of. They were from New York, Chicago, and Washington DC.” Her husband, possibly keen to collaborate and protect their lifetime jobs, accompanied her. “The agents asked me scores of questions,” she wrote. This is baffling, because the F.B.I. ostensibly had been monitoring the call throughout, and recording it, and they hardly needed more information about the call. It seems more likely that the scores of questions did not come from genuine F.B.I. agents, but were instead directed towards ensuring that Jefferson believed the call and to get her story straight. The operatives might have had to ensure that she no longer considered it a fraud and that the trace performed by Airfone engineers had been inconclusive. This lengthy telephone quizzing might have been a crucial opportunity to rehearse with Jefferson the reason she did not record the call, or why she did not keep notes of its time data, or ask to speak to the flight attendant, or patch the call through to the caller’s pregnant wife. In
225 other words, they needed to massage the account that Verizon would exceptionally allow Jefferson to take to the media later. They might have made veiled threats, confirming Jefferson’s suspicions that powerful people were involved, cowing her, and inducing behaviour in her that displayed symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. According to Jefferson, after the FBI session her husband continued reassuring her, perhaps supporting the call’s authority-endorsed authenticity. “[He] and I spoke several more times over the next hour or so, in person and over the phone. I was grateful we worked for the same company.”249 No sooner had she got home from work that day than the “F.B.I.” was telephoning again. “The agent and I discussed the events of the day, and I was told to maintain secrecy. . . I could contact Lisa Beamer---but later that week.” All other callees received personal visits from F.B.I. agents, including the U.S. solicitor general. It’s odd that Jefferson never received a personal visit on the day. It could be prima facie evidence that fakery was involved. Furthermore, the order to keep the call secret was extraordinary. No other 9/11 in-flight calls had been kept secret, that we know of. On the contrary, the F.B.I. had acted promptly on the Barbara Olson call250 by interviewing
226 solicitor-general Ted Olson at the U.S. Department of Justice on September 11th, and allowing the contents of the forged call to be rushed to the public by CNN and others within hours.251 The FBI has not explained why the Olson forgery was released immediately, while the Beamer call had to be kept secret for another four working days, presumably because they cannot.252 The authorities seem to have been playing for time while they assembled the Flight 93 story, which must have required visiting the callees, briefing politicians, and guiding the mass media. Government spokesmen equivocated on a possible shoot-down for two days.253 At first, an F.B.I. agent even refused to confirm that the plane had been hijacked.254 Capt. Adriane Craig, a spokesperson for NORAD, “declined comment [when] asked if there were any military aircraft flying in the vicinity of Flight 93 or activated in response to the hijacking of the plane.”255 This period of stone-walling coincides precisely with the duration of the secrecy policy on the alleged Beamer phone call. The government denied any shoot-down on Thursday,256 and accordingly on Friday the carefully-spun Beamer call was released to Ms. Beamer --- but evidently she (and others) already knew about it, as we shall see.
227 The explanation for delay given to Jefferson, was an F.B.I. “active investigation”257, possibly of Z. Moussaoui, already a prisoner they had held since before the 9/11 events, and whom the authorities were framing for a noose in a lynch-mob style trial years later. The only possible underlying explanation for Verizon Corporation and the Bush administration collaborating to delay releasing the Beamer story would be political, to prepare the suppression of widespread suspicions of a shoot-down with an alternative Flight 93 warmaking legend. There’s further damning evidence in the timing of a corporate circular by Larry Ellison, boss of Oracle, exC.I.A. contractor,258 employer of the disappeared Todd Beamer---and former employer of Mrs. Beamer, although she rarely mentioned her spell of “a few years” at Oracle.259 Ms. Beamer reported in her book that Ellison e-mailed Oracle employees on Thursday (Sept. 13th, 2001), singling out Todd Beamer as a hero and extolling his bravery. “He helped prevent the airplane from reaching its target---our nation’s Capitol. . . Todd’s brave actions saved countless lives on the ground,” Ellison wrote. Here was the legend fullyformed, complete with the imagined target (the Capitol
the “countless lives” saved, and the calm bravery.261 But how
228 did he know all this, when the FBI was supposedly keeping the Beamer call secret? With the Beamer heroism story already shaped by Ellison in his corporate circular, Jefferson said she heard next day (Friday) from her (unnamed) boss at Verizon Airfone that the F.B.I. had given the go-ahead for her to tell Mrs. Beamer that Todd had called Airfone. But she was not to call Mrs. Beamer. Instead, Verizon wanted United Airlines’ grief counselors to inform Mrs Beamer by letter that Lisa Jefferson had a message for her from her late husband. The reason for the circuitous communication must have been that it provided a convenient way to convey to Mrs. Beamer a written account of the call, an account that Jefferson never mentions writing in her book, something that she could have milked for emotion had she really done it. Probably the outline was written somewhere else, possibly with the help of the well-informed Ellison, who knew Todd and Lisa Beamer well: both had worked for him for years, and the couple had just returned on the day before 9/11 from an Oracle function conducted by Ellison in Italy. Lisa Beamer’s grief counselor from United Airlines, Nick Leonard, told her by phone on Friday evening that he had “a written summary of the call” in front of him. Without saying how she knew who wrote it, Beamer asserted that:
229 “Nick read a summary written by a GTE [she meant Verizon] supervisor.” So, Lisa Beamer was primed on the official version of the Beamer phone-call before she and Jefferson ever spoke. Had Ellison, her former employer, primed her, too? Perhaps about the Let’s Roll slogan he had mentioned in his corporate circular?
The widow called Jefferson’s home at 10:00 AM next day. (The record shows that Mrs. Jefferson did not call Mrs. Beamer, although Jefferson repeatedly stated on TV that she did, making her a public liar.) So Jefferson duly recited to Mrs. Beamer the story on which the telephonic F.B.I. voices had carefully drilled her, backing up the written account she was presumed to have written. Lisa Beamer’s reaction is significant. She immediately “asked if I wouldn’t mind speaking with a newspaper reporter from Pennsylvania”.263 Clearly, Lisa Beamer had already taken the initiative and gone public before speaking to Jefferson.264 Looking back at Lisa Beamer’s 2002 account of her conversation with Jefferson, the two stories are almost identical.265 There’s just one crucial divergence between the two accounts. Lisa Beamer reported Jefferson telling her about the Let’s Roll line, but Jefferson in her book said nothing about war-making slogan, beyond merely transcribing
230 the words. The absence of comment is because, in reality, she never heard Let’s Roll. In the first story ever written about Jefferson and her call, the one Lisa Beamer prompted her to participate in, reporter David MacKinnon revealed the truth: “He [Beamer] addressed his cohorts, still calm, saying, ‘Are you ready? OK,’ Jefferson said. She did not complete the phrase that Lisa Beamer relayed in an earlier interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which she quoted her husband using a family catch phrase: ‘Are you guys ready? Let's roll!’”266 ----------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: This frame from a U.S. National Guard recruitment commercial on TV showed a shell being inserted into the rifled barrel of a tank gun with the Let’s Roll
231 war-cry written on the end of it. (Video still from Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9-11.)
So the truth was there for all to see, recorded at the time by a careful reporter. Jefferson never heard the Let’s Roll recruitment slogan. She never mentioned it in the first interview she ever gave. The slogan came from the “poor, pregnant young widow”267, who went on to win media fame and riches by laying down the first chops in the campaign to invade the Islamic world and cause the deaths of tens of thousands non-combatants in Afghanistan and over one million in Iraq. Lisa Beamer obviously felt part of a team: when she later talked about her book to Larry King she remarked: “I don't think it's anything that I did myself from my own skills and abilities”.268 She might also have admitted that she was not married to Todd Beamer. In her book Let’s Roll, she wrote on Page 97: “I prepared for our wedding on May 14,1994. I had always wanted to move back East... Our wedding took place at the First Baptist Church in Peekskill, New York. However, a search of New York state marriage licenses (http://www.genlookups.com/ny_marriages/) shows no marriage license records for Todd Beamer and Lisa Brosious.
232 Because of the days of spinning that preceded the birth of Ms. Jefferson’s story, Called was a mess, the result of its author’s deeply conflicted feelings and of covert redaction. The fingerprints of officialdom were all over it, in the misleading portrayal of Verizon and the Airfone call centre, in Johnson’s disappearance, in the failure to name anyone at the scene, in the amnesia about events, times and methodology; above all, in the inconsistent and blinkered portrayal of the call-monitoring F.B.I., whose “active investigation” delayed publication of the story for days while at least one CIA-connected insider knew about it. It is the secret state’s hand that is all over this book, and not the hand of Mrs. Jefferson’s God. After Ms. Jefferson spoke with (the voice of) Lisa Beamer, Verizon management presumably instructed her to make the call to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette. The result was a deluge of calls to Jefferson. “The phone in our home rang incessantly from Saturday afternoon through late Sunday evening…The Jefferson household received nearly a hundred calls in that weekend alone.” Jefferson wrote that Verizon’s human resources department eventually “stepped in to field calls”. This is disingenuous: Verizon’s management had already shown itself to be orchestrating the handling of Jefferson’s call from Todd Beamer.
233 Jefferson’s credulous readers were supposed to believe that all this media attention was accidental, and not deliberate corporate policy. Yet the release of the synopsis to Ms. Beamer by Verizon management was obviously deliberate, after two days of scheming behind the scenes. Jefferson’s interview with Ms. Beamer was meant to happen: a huge corporation like Verizon, employing Burston Marsteller public relations advisers, would never allow an employee to go to the media without approval, particularly one with security clearance like Ms. Jefferson. Jefferson’s account piled on the sentiment as the tale of her news odyssey began. “Numb” for days after the call, she said she had some kind of breakdown after seeing her Beamer story on the front page of the newspaper. “For the next few days I could not function. It was as if my life as I’d known it was suspended in time…I found myself emotionally absent for a time. Absent…and frightened. I didn’t want [spouse] Warren to leave. If he was going to the store, I’d ask him, ‘When will you be back?’” A psychiatrist might recognise symptoms of Stockholm syndrome here, meaning an involuntary partnership in her own enslavement; in this case to a legend that she knew to be false but had been persuaded to adopt by a tightly encircling group of authority figures.
234 “I was bed-ridden, sleeping in my daughter’s room so I could avoid the TV, which Warren was watching. I escaped my pain through sleep, and when I wasn’t sleeping, I found myself unable to stop crying. I was inconsolable, afraid of the phone, afraid of the door-bell ringing, afraid of Warren leaving the house…And I felt violated.” Her status as permanent hostage of the legend was sealed when senior enforcers arrived. “Federal authorities -- an F.B.I. agent, a United States attorney from Washington, and a representative from the New York Terrorist Task Force came to interview me in the police station in our town --- and let me know that eventually I would be called on to testify in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.” She soon learned that the F.B.I. “were taking care of us”. The Moussaoui trial did not take place until four years later. Every time Lisa Jefferson appeared thereafter on TV and stated in her clipped Chicago accent: “I kyep’ mah promise”, she was either confabulating or knowingly lying. She had never called Mrs. Beamer, Mrs. Beamer had called her.269
OTHER FLIGHT 93 HIJACKER/ATROCITY CALLS
Supposedly, the Flight 93 callers received information about what had happened at the Twin Towers or the Pentagon
235 in only five of their reported in-flight phone conversations. Only five calls supposedly referred to an intent to revolt against the hijackers.270 Whatever the merit of such calculations about the content of mere singlesourced hearsay reports, such a paucity of references to a rebellion would not indicate that there was some concerted effort by teleoperators to give the impression that a rebellion occurred. The U.S. government put a lot of effort into promoting the idea of a rebellion, including an array of TV and cinema-release movies, one of them launched to coincide with the Moussaoui trial. They could have saved themselves the effort if the voices had been more emphatic about the rebellion. On the other hand, there was one topic on which the voices were emphatic. Every one of them reportedly said that Flight 93 had been hijacked. But the warning callers were still an inexplicably small minority of those aboard. There were 44 passengers aboard Flight 93, only 19 per cent of its capacity. In other words, the aircraft was mostly empty. On the other hand, 44 is the equivalent of four cricket teams, and according to the Moussaoui evidence only about 11 of them called the ground, or one in four. That is to say: 33 passengers aboard Flight 93 flew for some 35 minutes, ostensibly knowing that their plane had been hijacked by a
236 murderous gang, without calling home, office or police on one of the phones that were installed opposite their faces. Calling required only a credit card, and (with one exception) all the first-class passengers called, so their apparent removal to the rear of the plane did not prevent them having access to their wallets or handbags. It is commonly thought that, while most passengers inexplicably did not call from the three earlier doomed flights, those aboard Flight 93 had longer to decide, and were influenced by the news of the 9/11 events received by those who had called, so many more of them called. But that would not be quite accurate, because as we have seen, three-quarters of the passengers, or 33 people, ostensibly thrust into a very alarming situation, and sharing incoming news that indicated their plane might be doomed as well as hijacked, nevertheless did not call anyone. Bearing this in mind, we find that the evidence of those callers who ostensibly did contact those on the ground, besides being legally inadmissible hearsay evidence concerning the presence or absence of hijackers, is full of contradictions.
THE MARION BRITTON VOICE
The Marion Britton voice is another 9/11 distress call that its recipient, the mass media, and internet believers
237 firmly attributed to a cellular phone for five years, before the Moussaoui evidence converted it to an Airfone call. The 9/11 Timeline writes: “Flight 93 passenger Marion Britton calls her longtime friend Fred Fiumano at his auto repair shop in New York City, and talks to him for just under four minutes. According to the Chicago Tribune, she is using a cell phone.271 Journalist and author Jere Longman writes
that, because her own cell phone is not working, Britton is using a borrowed phone [i.e. a cell phone]. She gives Fiumano the phone number belonging to another passenger and tells him to write it down.272” This is an elaborate way of establishing a cell phone call. The report probably came from a call recipient, Mr. Fiumano, who by the time he reported it had heard about the other calls that were attributed to cell phones. Like Deena Burnett (see below), Fred Fiumano felt a need to establish the credentials of his caller’s cell phone, so perhaps he confabulated this peculiar account, but the Wainio voice told a similar story, so it might have been one of the methods used by teleoperators to convince their callees of the authenticity of their call.
U.S. Gov’t evidence file
CAPTION: Britton’s call was attributed to a cell phone for nearly five years before the Moussaoui evidence converted it to an Airfone call.
It is improbable that a cell phone call of any significant duration could have been made from Flight 93 on that day at 9:49 AM, when the aircraft ostensibly was flying above 10,000 feet, according to the Pentagon’s analysis of
239 the aircraft’s flight recorder (see next page). Even allowing for the higher land elevation beneath the plane of about 2,000 feet, an altitude above 8,000 feet would be exceeding the upper limit for a brief cellular connection
. But these considerations are unnecessary, because the
Moussaoui evidence file on Marion Britton does not claim a cellular call. According to the file, the call was made on an Airfone in the back row of the plane. So we have to explain why Fred Fiumano told the media that he heard his old friend’s voice giving him the number of a cell phone that he could use to call her back if she got cut off. His account was either influenced by other call reports, or the voice did say what he heard and was fraudulent. Therefore we do not need to take any notice of his lurid claim that Marion Britton told him two people had been killed by hijackers who “slit their throats”.
Flight 93 altitude profile
CAPTION: The Pentagon’s own graph of Flight 93’s altitude, supposedly reconstructed from information on the flight deck recorder, shows that any cellular telephone calls could not have happened on Flight 93 until it flew below roughly 10,000 feet, shown occurring after about 9.55 AM.
THE LINDA GRONLUND & ERIC DE LUCA VOICES
Gronlund and De Luca reportedly were a couple sitting together. Linda Gronlund’s sister, Elsa Strong, gave heroes legend-builder Gere Longman this account of her voice’s call from Flight 93 in the wake of the events (as so often, in direct speech form): • “I want to let you know how much I love you;
please tell Mom and Dad”, Linda said. “I don't know if I'll be able to tell you again in person how much I love you. I hope I will. I'm really going to miss you.” Then she said goodbye.274 A writer from Gronlund’s home-town newspaper in Warwick, N.Y., gave a quite different second-hand account on November 11th, 2001, filled with heroes-legend passion as the legend gained lift-off. “[S]he made a cell phone call from 35,000 feet (sic), just moments before the plane went down. She called her younger sister, Elsa. We have been hijacked, she told her. We know about the World Trade Center. We have voted on a plan. We will thwart this enemy to prevent others from dying, even if we can't save ourselves. Then she told her sister, her lifelong best friend, where to find all her personal papers. She knew she would have no further use for them.”
(In Lisa Beamer’s
242 version, Gronlund told her sister the access code for her safety deposit box,276 but it’s hard to establish the source of this embellishment.) These two different reports were both apparently based on personal interviews with the call recipient, and the latter attributes Gronlund’s call to a cell phone, meaning -------------------------------------------
CAPTION: Linda Gronlund’s is another call that was converted to an Airfone call from a cell phone call.
that Elsa Strong reported that she had received cell phone call from her sister at 9.46 AM, when Flight 93 was supposedly cruising at about 20,000 feet of altitude, according to the authorities. No cellular call could have been made at this altitude. Something must have made Elsa Strong believe in the cell phone attribution: we may suppose that she saw her sister’s caller ID on her telephone, if she had the appropriate unit, or on her cell phone screen if she received the call on it. As we have noted, the caller ID would have added authenticity and impact to the call. In addition, it would have helped to explain to bewildered Elsa why her sister’s call only lasted 71 seconds, because cell phones were supposed to function poorly when used in an aircraft. If forgery was involved, the call’s supposedly understandable brevity would have served to help prevent detection. The correction provided in the Moussaoui evidence, that Linda Gronlund did not use a cell phone as reported by the call recipient, but an Airfone merely adds to the confusion: why, in that case, was Gronlund’s call so brief? Joe DeLuca’s calls, evidently made on the same Airfone, were equally perfunctory. The Chicago Tribune reported his
244 call as follows: “He called his father. ‘The plane's been hijacked,’ he said. ‘I love you.’”277
CAPTION: Joe DeLuca’s calls seemed to simulate the imagined patchy performance of cell phone calls. His first call lasted just 14 seconds, and was redialled 36 seconds later. ------------------------------------------------
245 But this did not quite tell the whole story. DeLuca’s first call lasted only 14 seconds. It resembles an attempt to simulate a cell phone call, or the imagined performance of a cell phone being used in an aircraft. Imagine DeLuca’s father receiving a call in which his son’s voice had time to inform him that he was aboard a hijacked aircraft, and then having the phone go dead. Such a message would be alarming on any day, but in the context of the 9/11 events, it must have been shattering. With the call recipient thus softened up, 36 seconds later a second call came in.278 This time it stayed for two minutes and 10 seconds before ending again, having confirmed its crucial information: the plane has been hijacked.
THE ELIZABETH WAINIO VOICE
The call from the Wainio voice is another that has been tainted with a cell phone attribution given by the call recipient, in this case Wainio’s stepmother Esther Heymann. The call reportedly occurred at 9:53 AM, when Flight 93 was supposed to be flying at about 12,000 feet above sea level, or 10,000 feet above the elevated land, but still too high for a cell phone to make any connection. Newsweek reported on September 22, 2001: “Crucial evidence … may come from yet another phone call made by a passenger. Elizabeth Wainio,
246 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family.”279 A similar report appeared in the Chicago Tribune on September 30th. The Pittsburgh PostGazette attributed the call to an Airfone a month later, on October 28th. The initial borrowed cell phone story recalls Fred Fiumano saying Marion Britton’s voice had given him the number of a cell phone she had borrowed for her call. Neither call actually involved a cell phone, according to the Moussaoui evidence. Ms. Heymann later retracted her original cell phone claim on Larry King Live, telling the TV audience: “She did have a cell phone but she actually used the air phone that is on the back of the seats.”280 Heymann thus denied both the cell phone attribution and the borrowed phone story, so it is hard to give any credit to her claim that Wainio broke off her call after four minutes, supposedly saying she had to go and join the heroes in attacking the pilot’s cockpit. The stepmother probably ardently wished to enter her tragic stepdaughter posthumously into the Flight 93 hall of fame.
THE LAUREN GRANDCOLAS VOICE
The Grandcolas voice called Jack Grandcolas at home at 9:39 AM, when Flight 93 was supposedly above 35,000 feet and
247 even climbing towards 40,000 feet, an altitude at which any kind of cell phone call would be out of the question. And yet USA Today on September 25th, 2001 reported (using direct speech again): “Husband Jack Grandcolas said his wife made a quick cell phone call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. ‘We have been hijacked,’ she told him. ‘They are being kind. I love you.’”
CAPTION: The Grandcolas evidence file attributes all her calls to an Airfone, but the pattern resembles someone attempting to make a cell phone work in-flight. ------------------------------------------
248 As in many other reported 9/11 distress calls, in the Grandcolas file there is a strong tension between the attribution to an Airfone, and the given pattern of the calls. For example, after the first brief call home, the Grandcolas caller is shown to have called the Grandcolas residence four more times at intervals of about 20 seconds, each time achieving a connection, but holding it for only two, three or four seconds. If Flight 93 had not been at maximum altitude at the time, thereby ruling out any kind of cell phone connection, these stuttering connections would certainly suggest the kind of halting cell phone connections that might be achieved at a much lower altitude, somewhere below about 8,000 feet. At such an altitude, the call data would make sense, but attributed to an Airfone, they are senseless.
THE MARK BINGHAM VOICE
The first Flight 93 call recipient to get major massmedia attention, Alice Hoglan, mother of Mark Bingham, originally told a San Francisco TV station that her son had called by cell-phone, a claim reiterated by the mass media, including the blue-chip Washington Post.281 Hoglan said her son’s call abruptly “went dead”, illustrating that a key utility of cell-phones for the call-faking scenario was the
249 alleged brevity of any such connection, assuming it were even possible. Thus, cloned voices could make short calls, as in the Bingham voice’s calls, which lasted five seconds and then 166 seconds, in an apparent cell-phone simulation, although the government’s court evidence says the calls were made by Airfone which would normally impose no such time restriction. (This did not prevent, however, a 25-minute cellular call being reported from the Jeremy Glick voice.) ---------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: The Mark Bingham voice’s brief calls might have been an attempt to simulate supposedly unreliable cell phone calls.
Television selected Alice Hoglan to perform many times on September 12th and 13th, 2001, although others had heard hijacking voices in advance of her, from earlier planes. Hoglan was at pains to point out that her son’s call had been cut off, something that rarely happened on seatback telephones, as demonstrated in other, much longer, in-flight calls reported that day. “It sounded as if someone was speaking to him quietly, possibly sitting right next to him, then he came back on the line and said, ‘You believe me, don't you?’ I said, ‘I believe you, who are these guys?’ There was another long pause. I listened and then the phone went dead.”282 We note here that this sequence is consistent with a forged call: the quiet voices prompting, the peculiar query about credibility, the mother suspicious. Furthermore, this kind of cut-off would notionally be consistent with a cellphone’s performance, and may have been intended by teleoperators to be so interpreted by the recipients. There would be no reason for such cut-offs on the seatback connections that the government evidence asserts. Flight 93 offered a chance to spin a story of passenger revolt, or popular war, against Islam, although Hoglan did
251 not actually claim that her son’s voice had mentioned joining in a revolt, which might have been a reporting lapse on her part. The single mother was probably supposed to remember that her gay rugby-playing son’s voice had promised a passenger revolt, but in her excitement at being on world television forgot, or simply got it wrong. The FBI visit that rapidly ensued after she reported her call may not have been effective in this regard. On the other hand, she was canny enough to get her son’s name into the hall of fame, when she told the world that he greeted her as Mark Bingham, something that has raised sceptical suspicions, but probably should not have. After all, we only have her word for it, and it made sense for her to clarify the difference between her name and his. Of course, as a flight attendant employed by Flight 93’s operator, United Airlines, Ms. Hoglan would have known that cell-phones could not achieve a network connection at cruising altitude. She probably dealt occasionally with passengers complaining of that very fact, in spite of the F.C.C. and F.A.A. ban on using cell-phones in flight, or even switching them on. Something motivated her (or her sister who first fielded the call) to attribute the call to a cell-phone, in spite of her occupational training.
The Moussaoui evidence shows an “unknown caller” speeddialling United Airlines from Flight 93, and it apparently was not cabin staffer Sandy Bradshaw, in whose file it appears.
CAPTION: The feature film United 93 showed flight attendand Sandy Bradshaw calling United at 09:36AM, but the U.S. government’s evidence (above) listed the call as having been made by an “unknown caller”.
This collides with the movie United 93, branded by its director “a meticulous reconstruction”, which shows flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw making the 09:36 AM call (actually 09:35:40). We might assume that United Airlines established the identity of its employee who made such a vital call, and
254 which is shown as having lasted for five minutes. Yet the government’s evidence does not name Bradshaw. Another anonymous flight attendant is supposed to have called United four minutes earlier, just after 09:32 AM.
CAPTION: An unknown flight attendant reported something to United Airlines at just after 09:32 AM, speaking for 95 seconds. ……………………………………………………
255 But again, we aren’t told whose voice it was, and somehow the call seems to have been overlooked in the media legend.
THE ONLY IDENTIFIED CELL PHONE OF THE DAY
Yet another contradiction occurs in the so-called “Ed Felt” emergency call. It is the only cell-phone call for which the government’s evidence gives the caller’s cellphone number, establishing it as perhaps the most certain of all the calls, and yet it is the one call the contents of which have been suppressed.
CAPTION: Ed Felt’ cell phone, used to make a 911 call is identified in the evidence, but not the call’s duration.
When we consider the massive publicity and official endorsement given to false reports of numerous cell-phone calls from the airliners involved in the 9/11 events, it is all the more extraordinary that the content of this one call is, in sharp contrast, hard to establish. The suppression of the call must have been caused by its controversial alleged
257 contents. “The man told dispatchers the plane ‘was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him,’[supervisor Glen] Cramer said.”283 The call recipient, dispatcher John Shaw, spoke to his local Pittsburgh TV station, WTAE: • GREENSBURG, Pa. -- A Westmoreland County 911 dispatcher who received a call from one of the passengers aboard United Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County on Sept. 11, was honored Thursday for his efforts, WTAETV's Marcie Cipriani reported. • The passenger, whose name is not being released, called from a cell phone. He told 911 dispatcher John Shaw, 29, of Youngwood, Pa., that he was hiding in the bathroom of the hijacked plane. • Shaw said he knew immediately that the man on the other end of the line was desperate. • "He told me he locked himself in the bathroom, he gave me the flight number and the tail number, everything he possibly could, and that the plane had been hijacked," Shaw said. “I told him to stay calm, I tried to get as much information off of him as possible in the shortest period of time.”
258 Before Shaw could gather any more information about the hijackers, he said he heard something, but couldn't make out the noise. Then, just one minute after the call began, the line was dead.284 We immediately wonder how the caller knew the tail number of his passenger aircraft, but overlooking that aspect of the call, it did not fit with the official heroes legend, in which the alleged rogue pilot plunged the airliner whole into the ground at terrific speed, goaded to it by the invading passengers. The identification of first-class passenger Mr. Ed Felt as the caller was at first purely circumstantial and deductive, until his brother reportedly identified his voice from a 9-1-1 recording played by the F.B.I. “Edward Felt was identified in May  after his family listened to the cockpit and 911 tapes during a meeting of the families and the FBI in Princeton, N.J. Gordon Felt said he recognized his brother's methodical way of handling things and disagrees with Shaw's characterization [of the caller as desperate].”285 There can be little difficulty in distinguishing between someone who is desperate and someone methodical, so we have to wonder which recording the F.B.I. played to Gordon Felt --- and why the recording has not been released, as were the approved CeeCee Lyles, Betty Ong and
259 Mohamed Atta recordings. Furthermore, there should have been no difficulty over a posthumous identification, either from the cell phone provider’s OSS, or when his cell phone bill duly arrived annotating the call. There is no duration given in the U.S. prosecution evidence for the emergency call, reported to the media by the Westmoreland County 9-1-1 dispatcher before he was promptly silenced by the FBI. The dispatcher failed to take the name of the caller, although a 9-1-1 dispatcher is trained to get a name first. News reports said the dispatcher told of a one-minute call from an upset man’s voice. Why, then, does the evidence identify the caller, his cell phone identity286 and the call’s location, but not show the call’s duration? Felt’s is the only cell phone number given in the evidence. If he actually made a cell-phone call its duration should have been registered on his cell-phone bill and by the 9-1-1 exchange.287 It might be a bureaucratic oversight, but on the other hand it supports scepticism about the authenticity of the recording played to Gordon Felt.
THE CEE-CEE LYLES VOICE
Another U.S. government call file from Flight 93 resembles the Felt call in not giving a duration. The flight
260 attendant Ms. CeeCee Lyles (whose ID apparently was found clean and intact at the ostensible crash site) is shown as having called her home by cell phone at 09:58AM. -------------------------------------------
CAPTION: The Lyles cell-phone call shows no cell phone number and no duration, something noted on any cell-phone bill.
Ten minutes earlier, her voice had left a recorded message on the Lyles home answering machine that has been made public. A news report typically spun it wildly: “CeeCee
261 Lyles [i.e. her voice] could be heard praying for her family, for herself, for the souls of the men who had hijacked her plane,”288 although she is not heard praying, only getting across the vital information: “I’m on a plane” (she repeats this, although the flight-attendant job she was currently working at might have obviated this info), “hijacked”, “three men”. This call is shown as having lasted 56 seconds and coming from a seatback phone in the rear of the jetliner. Researchers have noted that Lyles’s voice is without inflection for most of the message, as if she is reading a script. When emotion does enter her voice, she says “I hope to be able to see your face again, baby … Goodbye!” but does not immediately cut the call and some listeners to the recording289 hear a whispered voice cooing “You did great”. Adding to suspicions are the clattering sounds of a handset being replaced clumsily on its cradle, and not the clean break of an “off” button on a cell-phone.290 Lorne Lyles can be seen on video expressing his perplexity over seeing her cell phone number on his telephone’s caller-ID screen and wondering how she could have called by cell phone from an aircraft in flight. Being a cop and married to an ex-cop who worked planes, he was in a position to know that cell-phones
262 did not work at cruising altitude.291 The government contradicts his evidence, while publishing the recording. When Cee Cee is alleged to have reached her husband and spoken to him a few minutes later, the evidence gives no duration or number for the cell-phone to which it attributes the call (one of only two that remain in the evidence). Why she would change from a working seatback phone to a cellphone that as a flight-attendant she should have known either would not work, or would work (at low altitude) at best very briefly, is not clear. The detailed dialogue is recalled by her marriage partner, who said the call ended abruptly. Here, it looks as if the evidence is deliberately fudging the cell-phone call issue again.292
THE TOM BURNETT VOICE
Deena Burnett soon joined Alice Hoglan all over the network news on September 12th and 13th, reporting four cellphone calls from her husband. Her assiduous notes of the calls are recorded on the family’s memorial website, Tomburnettfoundation.org. A reporter told of Ms. Burnett clutching these same notes a year after the 9/11 events. They exemplify the way the reported calls became cultic scripture. The U.S. government evidence shows Burnett’s
263 voice making three calls by seatback telephone, but not the fourth, the very one in which according to his stenographic wife his voice referred to a passenger revolt.
CAPTION: U.S. government court evidence denied Burnett’s fourth call, in which he supposedly referred to a revolt. ……………………………………………………… Ms. Burnett’s experience as a flight attendant with Delta airlines (an Airfone partner) evidently had taught her that cell phones did not operate at any altitude above 8,000-10,000 feet, because in her 2006 book, she wrote: “I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell
264 phone from the air”. However, on the same page she confounded her own judgement by reporting that she had seen her husband’s cell-phone ID on her handset. She wrote: “I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom’s cell phone number.”
She told the F.B.I. the same thing, according to
a Bureau report which stated: “Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the called identification showed his number, [XXXXXXXXXX]. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.”
Even more strangely, Ms. Burnett remembered her husband instructing her in his first call to telephone the F.B.I., something she said she did right away, causing Bureau agents to monitor the calls, one of which we learn from the same department of Justice never occurred. Ms. Burnett’s conviction about the cell phone calls had the enthusiastic support of U.S. TV network news for more than two years, attributing all the calls to a cell phone. For example, two years after the events, CBS-News The Early Show reported : “Tom Burnett made four cell phone calls from Flight 93 to Deena Burnett at home, telling her he and some other passengers were going to ‘do something.’ Months later during the investigation, Deena Burnett got to hear his
265 voice one last time, indicating to Deena Burnett that he had succeeded in reaching the cockpit.”295 The US Moussaoui prosecution evidence, however, showed that she had never received the fourth call in which, according to her own notes, her husband told her he and others were going to “do something”. Here’s what she wrote: • 6:54 a.m. Fourth cell phone call to [sic] Tom
to Deena [Snip] • Tom: Good. (a long quiet pause) We’re waiting
until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane. • Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and
don’t draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training). • Tom: Deena! If they’re going to crash this
plane into the ground, we’re going to have do something! Clearly, Deena Burnett received this call at her home, but the U.S. evidence, supposedly (but not confirmedly) based on OSS data from Verizon Airfone, shows no annotation of it having occurred. This is prima facie evidence of a forged call, the annotation of which teleoperators forgot to hack into the Verizon computer system.
THE JEREMY GLICK VOICE
CAPTION: Lyz Glick seems to have confabulated what her husband’s voice told her. Either that, or a black-ops teleoperator had an overworked imagination. …………………………………………………………………………
In defending only two 9/11 in-flight cell phone calls on Flight 93, the F.B.I. discredited all the early cell phone call reports made by blue-chip mass-media such as the Washington Post, The New York Times and CBS-TV. For
267 example, the Washington Post attributed to a cell phone the call reported by Mr. Jeremy Glick’s in-laws on Sept 13th, 2001. The report began: “As United Airlines Flight 93 entered its last desperate moments in the sky, 31-year-old passenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, of his impending death -- and pledged to go down fighting.” The Glick family said the cell-phone call lasted up to 30 minutes, something doubly impossible to achieve by cell-phone at cruising altitude in 2001, but willingly accepted by news managers both at the time and for several more years, by which time some of the claims were being quietly dropped by the mass media as untenable.
Jeremy Glick’s voice reportedly “called his wife [and] told her the plane had been hijacked by ‘three males appearing to be Iranian ... dark-skinned and with red bandanas on their heads.’” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reported on September 13th that: “FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript”. However, the public has neither seen nor heard these transcripts, which might be appropriately respectful of the family’s grief, but does not induce confidence among sceptical observers. The Post-Gazette also said the 30minute call had been made on a cell-phone, presumably citing
268 the recipients of the call, a prima facie indication of a forged caller ID. As reported, the contents of the Glick voice’s call were the most imaginative from Flight 93. Glick’s wife said her husband’s voice told her that “two hijackers were in the cockpit and a third had a red belt with a box that constituted some kind of a bomb.” (No mention of a fourth hijacker.) It’s worth noting that the “red bandanas” that the Glick voice mentioned “Iranian-looking” hijackers wearing is faulty: the choice of colour would seem to be a mistake. Red would be more appropriate for men of the Shia sect, the chosen colour of the supposedly attacking Sunni Moslems being green. The Sandy Bradshaw voice was reported making the same mistake.297 In the Moussaoui evidence there’s a photograph of an oddly clean and pressed red bandana that supposedly lay somewhere at the Shanksville crash site, to be retrieved by one of the F.B.I.’s reported search parties and put in an evidence bag. How such a clean piece of clothing could be retrieved from a compressed ball of crushed metal and flesh buried 30 feet underground is open to question, but it is also odd that the colour of the bandana, although implausible, nevertheless echoed Glick’s (and Bradshaw’s) reported words.
At a highly suggestible moment (the breaking crisis, instantly branded an Attack On America on TV newscasts), the 9/11 call recipients received telephone calls from voices close to heaven, as it were, and the conversations seem to have stuck in their minds like the ten commandments telepathically conveyed to Moses by his God on top of the 16,854 foot-high (5,137 M) Mount Ararat. In the wake of their shocking phone calls from the sky, some of the 9/11 call-recipient women appeared in the media speculating about what their voices had told them, as if they could remember word-for-word with unnatural clarity, like those blessed with visionary annunciations. Their accounts, stenographically transcribed, shaped and spun by credulous devotees in the mass-media, acquired the sanctity of holy scripture, aided by “White-House-to-foxhole” coaching from visiting state officials. Cell phones were new-fangled manacles that tied employees to their offices 24/7. Reporters should have known better than to believe the reported cellular calls, but as new owners of the rapidly proliferating devices they were evidently inclined to assign to them miraculous powers. They were spurred in their delusions by the passionate conviction of so many call recipients, who either saw caller IDs with
270 their own eyes, heard familiar-sounding voices telling them they were on a cell phone, or heard tales about borrowed cellular handsets. So many of the calls were originally attributed to cell phones that there was either a collective delusion, or there was a clever deception carried out in the cloak-and-dagger world of black-ops. However, the fact that the mass-media propagated a huge deception about the cell phone calls should be a warning to the public not to take too literally the content that those magical cell phone calls were supposed to have transmitted, namely the presence of hijackers on the rogue aircraft. With Congress discussing posthumous Congressional Medals of Honour for all those aboard Flight 93, for example, the call recipients had strong motives to exaggerate or unconsciously embroider what they thought the callers had said on the phone. In addition, callees may have absorbed and developed in their own words ideas planted in their minds by visiting F.B.I. and other agents, or by news reporters and TV producers. Behind the scenes, men have been manipulating the American public ever since the First World War and the engineered consumer boom of the 1920s.298 With the advent of television brainwashing, dumbed-down schools, and employing the massive computing power that came under their command,
271 the shadowy operators of mind-control have been running democracy as a façade. Electors saw this clearly in 2006, when Americans voted by a wide majority to end the occupation of Iraq, and six months later were bewildered to see a “surge” of extra troops being shipped to that benighted country along with an extra $70 billion to finance them. Something similar happened when the candidate of “change you can believe in” became President and escalated the Afghanistan war into an Af-Pak campaign, vowing to find and kill Osama Bin Laden, the supposed author of the 9/11 attacks, who for some reason was not accused of the crime on the FBI’s “most wanted” poster. Detailed studies have shown that the popular opposition which naturally arises to such manipulation by an élite gets managed down by means of money. Progressive organs of all sorts, for instance The Nation, Mother Jones and Counterpunch and on television Democracy Now with Amy Goodman all rely for their financing on grandiose foundations that make a subtle distinction between allAmerican constructive criticism and anything Communistic, or genuinely subversive of their rule. These funded outlets and others have ridiculed analysts for attributing to a demonstrably incompetent U.S. administration an elaborately scripted operation that had a
272 hundred ways of going disastrously wrong, and which involved a significant number of operatives in different fields, all of whom could be candidates for whistleblowing. For example, David Corn, a defender of the official theory, wrote: “[T]he notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try. It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories.” That was posted on March 1st, 2002. U.K. progressive pundit George Monbiot expressed a similar view, adding to “tripe” and “crap” the words “morons” and “magic” almost exactly five years later on February 6th and 20th, 2007.299 Now that the most famous phone calls have been officially discredited, throwing the rest of the calls into a new and suspicious light, these pundits ignore the evidence, evidence that could well have been introduced into court precisely by whistleblowers attempting to expose an inside job. Despite what Corn, Monbiot and other in-denial scoffers have written, it’s clear from the example of an earlier
273 black-ops job, the unsolved assassination of John F. Kennedy, that among a range of operatives and moles from the criminal underworld, extremist politics, covert militias and intelligence organizations, no one squealed (unless we count the death-bed confession of E. Howard Hunt). The gangster code of omerta prevailed, under threat of death.300 Furthermore, the Kennedy conspiracy was so imperfectly conceived that scores of people died conveniently in the aftermath, dozens of them apparently liquidated to perpetuate the false official account of the assassination (see: Marrs, bibliography), and the Kennedy-connected killings are paralleled in the scare that followed 9/11, when agents still unknown distributed military weapon-grade anthrax, probably intending to kill many more than they did, apparently in order to intimidate Congress and silence questions about the September 11th disasters. Note that the deaths of Americans infected by the U.S. military-grade spores meant nothing to the military-linked perpetrators, who have never been identified. If the Moussaoui court evidence on the 9/11 phone calls was not placed by whistle-blowers, to whom else was a whistleblower to squeal in the current political dispensation of the Angloplex? The U.K. media oligopoly ignored the phone evidence after the trial, even though it
274 expended considerable money to obtain it. Whistleblowers on Iraq have encountered the ultimate interdiction: death. “Seven soldiers wrote op-eds critical of the war — in The New York Times; three are dead, one shot in the head. A female soldier who was about to become a whistleblower, possibly about abuses involving taxpayers’ money: shot in the head. Pat Tillman, who was contemplating coming forward in a critique of the war: shot in the head. Donald Vance, a contractor himself, who blew the whistle on irregularities involving arms sales in Iraq — taken hostage from the U.S. Embassy by U.S. soldiers and kept without recourse to a lawyer in a U.S. held-prison, abused and terrified for weeks — and scared to talk once he got home. Another whistleblower in Iraq, as reported in Vanity Fair: held in a trailer all night by armed contractors before being ejected from the country.”301 In the U.K., David Shayler, the rebel intelligence service officer who criticised the 9/11 legend, abruptly went publicly mad and was discredited.302 If post-9/11 the U.S. administration had condemned ridicule of critics of the Al Qaeda conspiracy theory, had called for informants, and advertised a phone number that whistle-blowers could call confidentially, the “someone would have leaked” theory might hold water. Instead, the U.S. administration not only did no such thing, but instead
275 it intransigently opposed a commission of inquiry, and eventually under pressure proposed to head one with the notorious D.C. insider Henry Kissinger, covert architect of the September 11th, 1973, Chilean right-wing coup d’etat. As it turned out, far from supporting whistle-blowers such as Sibel Edmonds and Karen Kwiatkowski, the Kean/Zelikow Commission issued a report that ignored them. There is no middle ground on this crucial scripted-orimprovised issue regarding the 9/11 telephone calls. If the calls were authentic, then they destroy speculation that the hijackers were patsies who genuinely intended to return to an airport and engage in the usual negotiations (as Lisa Jefferson allegedly assured ‘Todd Beamer’ was the case). The voices’ multiple accounts of murderous mayhem in the firstclass sections of each plane would prove that the alleged hijackers had no such intentions of returning to any airport. On the other hand, if the calls reporting the mayhem were electronically forged, then the evidence of hijackers is restricted to the dubious photos allegedly found at airports; discovered passports at crash sites (and the bandana at the Flight 93 site), and the treasure trove of information in “Atta’s luggage”. Besides absence of evidence of hijackers on board, there is evidence of their absence: the failure of any of the pilots to squawk the
276 hijacking code while the hijackers were allegedly breaking into their cockpits. A complicating factor: genuine calls might have been suppressed. The calls are so thickly intermediated by layers of technology and spin that we cannot be certain that the voices that have entered the public record represent all the telephone calls that occurred. Cabin crew or passengers might have reported poison gas (and not just Mace); pilots might have reported by telephone that their radios had failed, that their aircraft would not respond to the controls and were flying automatically. These calls would have been processed through Verizon or AT&T surveillance departments subject to security clearance, 9-1-1 operators
subject to F.B.I. gagging orders, and been suppressed by moles “for security reasons” or in connection with secret multi-agency exercises being conducted that day. This is not just a paranoid supposition: the statements of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda get blazoned all over the news while sober critiques of the 9/11 official story get ignored. Four years passed between the on-line publication of the 9/11 telephone evidence files and the first mainstream television report about them: and that was on Canadian, not US, TV.303 Cherry-picking voices from rogue planes would be consistent with the ignoring of the phone call evidence files. The
277 suppression of such evidence would be also be consistent with the suppression of other evidence in the 9/11 action, from the rapid incineration of nearly all structural debris at the World Trade Center and Building 7, through concealment of aviation debris to the confiscation of crucial surveillance videos. It is extraordinary that no passenger telephoned from rogue Flight 11. But how can anyone be sure that no calls came in from that plane which, although it was only 36 per cent occupied, nevertheless allegedly carried 81 passengers, each with access to a seatback telephone handset, operable by anyone’s credit card? Verizon Airfone surveillance center plays a suspiciously marginalised role in the confessional book of the Airfone operator-supervisor, Lisa Jefferson (see Flight 93). She pretended that no other calls from rogue aircraft occurred on her shift, an obvious deception that could mask further deceptions within that key corporate communications center, privy as it was to the U.S. elite via its private Airfone accounts with more than 3,400 private, military and government jets. If it were not a deception it would be blatant evidence that no phone calls came from the aircraft, and instead were made from the ground (or another aircraft) by black-ops teleoperators.
278 No word of the suppression of any in-flight 9/11 calls has ever entered the narrative of the U.S. mass-mind control apparatus, and yet suppressions would be consistent with the rest of the 9/11 record. In considering the calls of which we have a sort of record, therefore, we have to consider: 1. and 2. certain other calls may have been suppressed. they may have been redacted by officialdom;
Again, the cry of the left-leaning supporters of the official story can be heard: it could never be organised by the incompetent U.S. administration, and anyway someone would leak!304 However, an inside job is not the same as a government operation. For example, the speculations made in advance of the events by those financial insiders with foreknowledge were never investigated and were brushed off by the 9/11 Commission cover-up. Any scruples expressed by accessories to the crime could be dismissed by: “There’s a war on”, the excuse universally used post-9/11 to rationalise the abandonment of civilised standards and the development of a world-wide surveillance state under, for example, the global US-VISIT scheme. The evidence around the phone calls is so difficult to trust that a firm conclusion about its veracity or completeness is impossible on the basis of what we know so
279 far. None of the Moussaoui trial phone evidence is properly referenced: it is simply asserted. Most of the electronic files raise questions, as we have attempted to show here. For example, not a single seat row number is given for the four vital calls from Claircom systems aboard the two American Airlines aircraft, Flights 11 and 77. No tidy verdict is possible. It looks as if some of the 9/11 phone calls were voice-morphings accompanied by faked caller ID, and validated by fudged official evidence; others, like the Ace Bailey calls, never occurred; and more may have been suppressed. Considering the scale of the aerial events on 9/11, and the telephonic technology available, air-to-ground calls were few in number. The U.S. government evidence says that 21 voices were heard from the rogue planes, but they were only 21 arising from a total of 265 people aboard the four aircraft, or one-in-12 potential callers. If we exclude Flight 93 with its relatively numerous calls, and Flight 77 on which the AT&T-Claircom seatback phones probably had been deactivated, the two aircraft alleged to have hit the Twin Towers only have six voices out of 157 aboard, or a much lower proportion of one-in-26 potential callers. No passenger voice is reported to have called from the most populous aircraft, Flight 11, during the 32-minute
280 interval between its seizure and its disappearance, in spite of bloody mayhem in first-class and the absence of hijacker control of coach class, as described by the digitised voices of supposed members of the cabin crew that emerged into the mass-media through F.B.I. channels. The official conspiracy theory attempts to explain the low number of calls from Flight 11 by the passengers’ illusion that they were involved in a ‘normal’ hijacking of the kind that had not occurred for 15 years. The ‘Amy’ Sweeney voice concurred with this, according to the American Airlines manager who heard it and told the F.B.I., which retailed his story. However, this supposition does not square with the accounts of murderous mayhem and gassings on board, which would have caused consternation in first class, and must have carried (with the transferred first-class passengers and the smell of gas) over into coach. For many, a major block to suspecting that 9/11 was an inside job is the passengers. So many of them seem to have genuinely disappeared, some even to have had their mortal remains laboriously identified by the authorities --except, that is, the alleged hijackers themselves. And yet the Pentagon is on record planning to provoke war by creating an illusion of massacred airline passengers. In its Northwoods scenario, phoney passengers equipped with
281 authentic-seeming identities boarded a scheduled flight which then landed covertly somewhere else while an identical drone aircraft travelled on to explode over Cuban waters. All the 9/11 passengers had convincing background stories. Some were well enough known in their own worlds to make a Northwoods fake-up scenario hard to believe, for example L.A. hockey star Ace Bailey, who ostensibly flew first-class on Flight 175, although suspicions are aroused by the U.S. government’s evidence asserting calls by him that his wife never received. Some passengers exhibit hints of connections to U.S. intelligence, for example the Beamers, possibly Barbara Olson, others with military or military-industrial backgrounds, particularly those ostensibly aboard Flight 77. All the eight airline pilots involved were ex-military and potentially recruitable for the war-games being conducted that day, which presumably caused the FAA to ask them to change direction, and which may have caused them not to give hijack warnings. People reason that because the passengers vanished, the rogue plane crashes must have killed them. They attribute the non-identification of the remains of most of the passengers, as in Flights 93, 175 and 11, to the massive violence of the collisions and resulting fires. However, the mammalian body is surprisingly durable, a fact familiar to
282 the operators of crematoria, who have to incinerate a body at high temperatures for over an hour to reduce it to ashes.305 Moreover, the identification of passenger remains in all cases has been under the control of the FBI and the Pentagon, because the crash sites were all identified as both crime scenes and foreign attacks. No information is actually known about the fate of the passengers that has not been dispensed from inside the Pentagon’s secretive and labyrinthine information-processing machinery. For example, Yukio Fushita, a long-standing Japanese member of parliament on January 10th, 2008, asked his government on national television how it knew that two Japanese nationals had been aboard Flight 93 and Flight 11. The head of the Foreign Office replied: “We were told by U.S. authorities and, in general, they use DNA testing. So we believe that is how we know about those two people.” For those whose professional integrity as reporters or researchers relies on remaining sceptical of authority, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of what became of the 9/11 passengers without a genuinely independent inquiry. In line with this, and in view of the US leadership’s known deceptions, some sceptics consider the 9/11 telephone calls to be scripted improvisations, technically mastered using teleoperators and voice-cloning software. Such
283 forgeries would have been included for two vital purposes: first, to convince the public that Moslem hijackers were involved, and thus, secondly, to ensure that the crash sites stayed in the hands of the F.B.I. and the Pentagon. The bereaved, called into service subsequently to support cultic propaganda on corporate television specials viewable by hundreds of millions, were piteous dupes who believed themselves to be motivated by devout patriotism and loyalty to their heroic loved ones. They gave accounts of heroism and mayhem to suit the agenda, unaware that they were doing so, and keenly believed by media hacks. Psychological warfare had come a long way in the 40 years since the Cuban missile crisis. The fate of the passengers is the key obstruction to breaking the shackles of racial hatred and the war on terror prompted by the 9/11 events. People refuse to believe that the passengers could have lost their lives in any manner except the official conspiracy theory’s explanation. The ostensible telephone calls (plus those ostensibly made by cabin crew members) are how the ghosts of the deceased, in the words of Bell Telephone, “reach out and touch” the mediated masses, particularly through the string of TV and cinema feature films made about Flight 93 and its Arab-
284 murdering heroes, in which the call recipients incant what the voices told them on their telephones. Examining the alleged telephone calls, then, is one way to help clear up the difficult question of the fate of the passengers, because if any of the calls can be shown to have been faked, then they all are called into question, and the fate of the passengers then becomes a genuine issue, although one still very hard to determine. Because not just one but several of the phone calls can be shown to have been faked, and because so many of them were originally attributed to impossible cell phone calls, indicating that false caller IDs were transmitted, all the calls come into question and the fate of the passengers is now, right before our eyes, a chilling mystery that urgently requires a new, independent inquiry. Hundreds of innocent passengers on scheduled flights can not be murdered with impunity by sociopaths still living. This scenario is no more incredible than the Northwoods plan presented to the White House by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff in 1962, just much larger in scale to match the wars it successfully triggered, wars which were recognisably as misguided as the earlier war in Vietnam, and as obviously doomed to eventual failure. We have quoted President Bush linking Flight 93 with a Third World War. Threats of a
285 nuclear exchange with Iran have featured in the ongoing war on terror. Certain advocates of these extreme policies seem to agree with the chilling resolution usually attributed to USAF commander and mass-murdering Japan fire-bomber Gen. Curtis E. Lemay “if we have to start all over again, I want Adam and Eve to be Americans”. Lemay was Chief of the U.S. air force in 1962 and co-signed the Northwoods plans. Some truth campaigners have asserted that the many blatant deceptions in the 9/11 events are no accident, and that the net of complicity has been spread so widely that to denounce it means indicting most of the USA’s governmental and mind-control structure, something that is unthinkable for most people.306 Truth campaigner Kevin Barrett has succinctly pointed out the basic predicament:
[T]he 9/11 operation produced massive
cognitive dissonance—---an irresolvable contradiction between two self-evident, unquestionable truths: 1.) Top US officials would never do something so awful; and 2) Overwhelming evidence shows that they did do it.307 This conflicted mentality is illustrated by the astonishing publicity given to the alleged statements of one
286 of the U.S.A.’s Most Wanted Men. The mind-control machine routinely brandishes Osama Bin Laden’s videos before the masses, even though he is listed on the FBI’s website as America’s most-wanted, accused of running a world-wide terror network called Al Qaeda aimed at destroying America’s freedoms and imposing cruel and backward sharia law on the population of the world. He certainly should be silenced, but quite the opposite is the case: his messages are megaphoned every time they occur. This contrasts sharply with the actions of the U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher, confronted by a genuine terror-bombing campaign that ultimately nearly killed her. The Irish Republican Army (which got much of its financing from Americans) conducted multiple bomb attacks on Manchester, Warrington, Birmingham and London. The army even bombed Thatcher and members of her cabinet at their hotel in Brighton, and later mortar-bombed London’s Heathrow airport and the Prime Minister’s official residence at 10 Downing Street. Mrs. Thatcher did not respond by encouraging the mass media to trumpet the statements of the IRA’s leadership all over the world. She silenced the I.R.A. political spokesperson, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, by not allowing him to speak on TV or radio. She said she was denying the
287 IRA “the oxygen of publicity”. For years, Adams’ words were not allowed to be heard by the British people. In amazing contrast, U.S. media policy is to pump oxygen into Bin Laden’s propaganda efforts. Every video statement in which he or his associates appear is touted on every front page, on every TV screen on earth, however crude the audiovisual forgery involved. The mind-control machine can’t get enough of Osama Bin Laden, while the reasoned critiques of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory by experienced commentators are shunned and shut out with a wall of silence. By this method, the mass-media of the whole world is co-opted into the 9/11 cult, and any denunciation of the delusion is marginalised. Such is the world of mirrors of the war on terror. Finally, we have to consider the contradictions that underlie the U.S. government’s 9/11 telephone evidence. • It took five years to emerge from the
governmental and corporate machinery and is not referenced. • And while it contradicts the government’s
official story in part, it also shows signs of being compromised to accommodate it. This text reflects the ambiguity: we both believe and disbelieve the evidence. We believe it when it demolishes
288 the official legend from which the Angloplex’s huge military-industrial-security machine has profited vastly, and disbelieve it when it is obviously fudged and provides inconsistent data. Was the court telephone evidence itself fabricated? In the looking-glass world of the so-called war on terror, this is a sophisticated question with no ready answer. The court evidence clearly adapts itself to the official narrative, for example by fudging the Olson and Beamer call data and other ostensible cell phone calls such as the Sweeney voice’s. If evidence in these crucial calls was fudged, that is to say adjusted to acknowledge the ‘foreign-attackers’ narrative while attempting to protect U.S. prosecutors from prison sentences, suspicion immediately falls on the data given for other calls and we have examined the files and found problems with them all. There’s also the possibility that in submitting evidence that discredited the U.S. government’s own story, conscience-stricken second-level DOJ officials were trying to scuttle the lynch-mob trial of Moussaoui by a U.S. President who as Governor had already condoned the judicial murder of 135 Texan prisoners. The state of New Jersey was preparing to abolish the death sentence at the time and
289 abolitionists were working to add more names to the list of 11 states that already had a ban. On the other hand, and it bears repetition, their sabotage of the official narrative at crucial points could be construed as covert whistle-blowing of the very sort that supporters of the official story claimed would have happened in any fallible insider plot, but argued never had. What could be clearer evidence of whistle-blowing, for example, than the denial of the Barbara Olson telephone call that crucially directed Americans’ attention away from potential perpetrators within the military-industrial-media complex? U.S. government evidence has to be believable; where it is simply not believable we have to point out the inconsistencies and hope that the truth will come out. However, it seems unlikely that any more light will be thrown by the Pentagon, the U.S. telecoms corporations, the Wall Street credit card sources, or the companies that process U.S. telephone call records. Nor are the distorting mirrors of the secret state’s intelligence services likely to provide any closure. The paradoxical telephone evidence seems to reflect the struggle within the American collective mind: the system could never have organised such an atrocity and a perversion of reality, and yet so much of the evidence indicates that
290 it did. Hands from both sides of this struggle seem to have worked on the U.S. government 9/11 telephone evidence. Perhaps the two hands reflected cognitive dysfunction within one individual’s mind, belonging to one of the lawyers who prepared the U.S. case against Z. Moussaoui. It seems peculiarly appropriate that the most perverse information in the telephone evidence occurs when it most closely affects the department of Justice, destroying the credibility of the former solicitor general who was perhaps the closest legal aide of the U.S. president. It also damages the department’s political police, the F.B.I., when it denies the Olson call that the F.B.I. confirmed, and throws doubt on the existence of the Todd Beamer phone call that was so closely handled by the Bureau. It damns the hand-maiden of justice, the news system, when it demolishes the cell-phone call delusion. In all this it is consistent with the rules of office politics, but of course government evidence should be more than that. It should be validly sourced and transparent, but even the most damaging evidence, that which demolishes the Olson calls, is itself fudged, failing to identify the type of telephone used while asserting that the call was “unconnected”. The Angloplex is occupying Afghanistan and infiltrating nuclear Pakistan because of the 9/11 events. Even the
291 Canadian government, which spent generations developing a role as a leader of diplomacy and peace-keeping that arose from its own internal multi-lingual settlement, is now involved in combat there, and quietly has bought 120 new tanks for deploying world-wide in the so-called war on terror. The Canadian prime-minister described himself watching television on 9/11 and realising: “This has changed history”. However, the U.S. government’s court evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial concerning the 9/11 distress calls, while full of its own contradictions, nevertheless indicates that the events were manipulated, thereby destroying the events’ authenticity as genuine foreign-operated terror attacks, and revealing them as political machination for the benefit of the Angloplex’s war machine. In other words the terror must have been generated within the war machine itself in the furtherance of its own power and profit.
9/11 widows call for new investigation after revelations of White House, commission ties, by Nick Juliano, Global Research/The Raw Story, February 5, 2008. LINK: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8008
Stonewalled by the C.I.A., By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON, January 2, 2008. LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
9/11 Commission controversy, Deep Background NBC News Investigates, January 30, 2008, By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco. The report stated: "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured’. The claims came during their hearings last spring at the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
Portia, Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 2. I reprint the following endnote, courtesy of David Ray Griffin: “[A] member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified” that “13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls” (Greg Gordon, “Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording,” McClatchy Newspapers, KnoxNews.com, April 12, 2006 [http://www.knoxsingles.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-1206&cat=WW]). The person giving this testimony was Detective Sergeant Ray Guidetti of the New Jersey State Police, who had been “assigned to an FBI anti-terrorism task force in Newark” (Richard A. Serrano, “Heroism, Fatalism Aboard Flight 93,” Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2006 [http://rednecktexan.blogspot.com/2006/04/heroism-fatalism-aboardflight-93.html]). This story reported, based on Guidetti’s testimony: “37 phone calls were made by 13 passengers and flight attendants, most of them using air phones. Two of the calls were from cellphones.” (It agreed with Gordon’s story, therefore, that Guidetti reported that there were 35 calls from passenger-seat phones and only two from cell phones.) Although the New Jersey State Police website pointed out that “Guidetti was the only non FBI agent selected” to head up the FBI’s investigation into the four flights, it did not explain why he, as a police officer, was chosen. It merely said: “Four case agents were selected to lead the investigation . . . , one from each of the cities where a flight that was hijacked originated. DSFC Raymond Guidetti who was assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) was selected as the case agent
for flight 93 which originated in Newark” (“Trooper of the Year,” New Jersey State Police [http://www.njsp.org/info/toy00.html]. 6 Both U.S. prosecutors and media managers knew that cell phones would not work at cruising altitude without the installation of a special pico cell system. Technology expert Omar Maslow told MSNBC Today Show on December 15th, 2004, upon the authorisation of new systems to enable cell phone calls in-flight, that “cell phones do not work over 10,000 feet”. 7 The basic offense level for substantial interference with the administration of justice is 17 points, or up to 30 months. http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/5a.htm. 8 Witness Flap Casts Doubt on Call for Death in Moussaoui Case, Sarah Kelley and Jason McLure, Legal Times, March 21, 2006, quoted in Law.com. Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142862089177 See Note 5. See Note 5. 11 As the Associated Press reported on April 6th, 2006: • Much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones. Earlier in the trial, prosecutor David Raskin read out to the jury accounts of the last moments of several of the Sept. 11 planes based on cell phone calls by passengers and flight attendants to family members and ground controllers. This AP report showed that prosecutor Raskin had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93. It is no wonder that the AP reporter described the jury as “transfixed”, because the deluded prosecutor was describing to them cell phone calls that: 1. in 2001 people aboard Flight 93 at cruising altitude could not have made for technical reasons; 2. that the prosecution’s own evidence did not claim happened; 3. the alleged contents of which constituted inadmissible hearsay. In the U.S.A. giving false testimony in court, the crime of perjury, is punishable by serving up to 20 months in federal prison.
An FBI witness also discounted in court all the Flight 93 cell phone calls but two. “In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.” By GREG GORDON, McClatchy Newspapers, April 12, 2006. From KnoxNews.com. 13 The secret state. I am adopting the phrase used for the title of his book of the same name by Peter Hennessy. In it, he described a privileged circle within the U.K. state who “operat[ed] necessarily in conditions of umost secrecy even within their own organisations” to plan and covertly finance the state’s nuclear weapons policy and operations. There were no leaks over a period of decades. (Allen Lane The Penguin Press 2002). 14 As expressed by best-selling author Jere Longman in his believer-book “Among the Heroes”, N.Y. Harper Collins 2002. 15 From Co-operativeResearch.com: 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan. “Shortly before Flight 93 reverses direction and heads east, someone in its cockpit radios in and asks the
FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington, DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] Jeff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, ‘We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.’ [Washington Business Journal, 9/11/2001] Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001) [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11] , so it is presumably made by one of the hijackers. Twenty-five minutes later the pilot hijacker [sic] will also program a new destination into the plane’s navigational system.” 16 Griffin, 214; see Bibliography 17 Thanks to David Griffin for this reference.
Olson, according to the FBI report, told FBI agents that he didn’t know whether it was a cell or a seat-back phone. See FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008, LINK http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbisource-documents.html
Access to this archive is available to the Department of Defense, the Justice Department and their FBI, the NSA, the IRS, and the DHS on the Federal side and every credit company, insurance agency and bill collecting agency on the civil side. Approved entities pay their entry fees and they can learn anything about anyone as long as it is in the huge files of the data bank. LINK: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8504 20 The so-called Hollywood film industry --- the Warner part of AOLTime-Warner --- was developed into a world-dominating medium by the “Supermob”. Their alarming story, expertly reconstituted by author Gus Russo in his eponymous book (Bloomsbury USA, New York, 2006) tells of lawyers connected with Chicago gangsters who laundered part of the gangs’ immense criminal fortunes into the film business and its booming base in Southern California. A key component of the supermob was entertainment industry hub MCA, which went on to become Universal Studios and later part of General Electric’s NBC media empire. Universal co-produced the deceptive propaganda movie “Flight 93” in 2006, and timed its launch to coincide with and exploit the Moussaoui trial. Russo has also written a comprehensive history of “The Outfit”, the Chicago gangster world that provided the funds for “Hollywood” and its most famous product: U.S. President Ronald Reagan. 21 Debunkers protest that “Cell phones were generally more powerful then. Their power has been reduced to lower radiation emissions.” But this is a red herring. The FAA banned cell phone use aboard aircraft precisely because they scrambled the cell phone system when they contacted more than one cell simultaneously, terminating their own call and possibly corrupting others’. The power of the phone is irrelevant because whether it contacted the network or not, any message would corrupt the system and fail. 22 Israel 21c, Israeli-developed airplane cell phone technology takes flight, By David Brinn, December 05, 2004. 23 9/11 Commission report Note 57. 24 9/11 Commission report P. 9. 25 There is one hint in this CNN report that Flight 77 might have been flying low enough for a cell-phone call to succeed, when it mentions that Mr Olson said that Mrs Olson said that the airliner was
flying “over houses”. The reference to individual houses, and not to the more general “suburbs”, or “a city”, does suggest low altitude. There are three problems with this evidence: 1. It is third-hand, coming from Mr Olson, citing his wife, and reported by CNN. We have no idea what Mrs Olson actually said to Mr Olson. 2. The route and altitude of Flight 77 are unknown. 3. A cell-phone transmission from a speeding jet-liner would pass so rapidly from one “cell” to another that the call would scramble the computer system. For example, if a rural Allegheny Mountains “cell” were 10 miles in diameter, a jetliner travelling at 550 M.P.H. would traverse it in 6.5 seconds, and the next, and so on.
26 The BBC reported the call at 12.51 GMT on Septemebr 12th, 2001. Its on-line version stated near the top of a report covering calls from the stricken planes: “One of the 266 passengers on the four jets was Barbara Olson, wife of senior Justice Department official Theodore Olson. She called her husband moments before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Washington. Mrs Olson is reported to have told her husband the attackers used knife-like instruments to overpower the flight crew. 'We're going down' She is reported to have said "Can you believe this, we are being hijacked" before the cell phone went dead. Mr Olson confirmed his wife made the calls before dying with the 63 other people on board.“ www.wikipedia.com. Gus Russo’s extensive history of the “Supermob” (See Bibliography) unwittingly provides a compelling background to the 9/11 false-flag operation. Sceptics will see in its comprehensive F.B.I. and Congressional archive-based data the criminal foundations of much of the U.S. movie-illusion industry and its derived television-surround. Also, see the works of psychologist Robert Hare and colleagues, who have described in detail the phenomenon of the successful sociopathic personality, or, in, for example, Hare’s book entitled Without Conscience (Bibliography). Hare’s research suggests that two or three per cent of a given human population is sociopathic, half of them having high intelligence. In the U.S.A. alone, they would total more than one million highly intelligent sociopathic individuals devoid of any conscience. 29 Sceptics often cite the Israeli company Amdocs as a suspicious foreign company with a monopoly on this kind of operating software for U.S. telecoms providers. However many other large corporations are also players in the telecoms OSS field, e.g. biliti Solutions, ACE*COMM, AmBeo, AMDOCS, Apogee Networks, Avolent, Billing College, Billing World and OSS Today, BillSoft, The Board Room, CBILL, Inc., Checkfree i Solutions, ComArch Group, Comm Soft, Communications Data Group, Comporium Data Services, Comptel Corporation, Convergys, CTI Group, Daleen Technologies, DATAMATX, DocSense, DPC, DST Innovis, edocs, Ericsson, eMIS, Engel Consulting Group, EUR Systems, European Communications, Exstream Software, Financial Statement Services, Fujitsu Consulting, Group 1 Software, Hewlett-Packard Company, High Deal, Inc., IBM, Info Directions, Infotech Solutions, Intec Telecom Systems PLC,
Intrado Inc., IPDR.org, Isis Papyrus America Inc., Kabira, KPMG Consulting Inc., Lucent Technologies, Mail2000, A UPS Company, Metavante Corporation, Metratech, MIND CTI, MindSparX, Moore BCS, Narus, nTels Co., OSG Billing Services, Output Technology Solutions, Personix, Platinum Communications, Inc., Portal Software, Protek, Quintrex Data Systems, RateIntegration, Schlumberger Se, Sentori, Service Level Corporation, Smarten U.S., SMS Consulting, SunTec Business Solutions, Teleflex Systems, Inc., TeleKnowledge, TeleStrategies, Inc., Telution, The Tower Group, Times Ten Performance Software, TMNG Inc., TSI Telecommunication Services, UDP, United Support Systems, USHA Communications Technology, Vertex Inc., Vestcom International, Vibrant Solutions, XACCT Technologies. It is not known whether all these sample companies offered OSS services in 2001. LINK: http://www.rense.com/general18/isr2.htm. Comment note from David A. Doane. 30 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). 31 Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?: An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones, by David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo. Pilotsfor911truth.org. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html Perjury sentence:
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701i.html, 17 September 2001. In Hersh’s <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh> most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the <http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/14/iran-speedboats-mullen/>overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier <http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/07/pentagon-says-us-ships-harassed-byiranians/ almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?curre ntPage=all how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources. During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an
idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected: HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build we in our shipyard build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. 37 LINK http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=92662&page=1 38 Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb, movie written and directed by Stanley Kubrick in the U.K. in 1963. Novel by Peter George. Kubrick probably had Lemnitzer and Lemay in mind when making this satire that is often voted one of the great films of all time. 39 The adjective Machiavellian has come to be a synonym for amoral cunning and for justification by power, after Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527, Italian author and statesman, one of the outstanding figures of the Renaissance, b. Florence., author of The Prince. [Reference.com] 40 John Birch Society, ultraconservative, anti-Communist organization in the United States. It was founded in Dec., 1958, by manufacturer Robert Welch and named after John Birch, an American intelligence officer killed by Communists in China (Aug., 1945). The most prominent of the extreme right-wing groups active in the United States, the society was founded to fight subversive Communism within the U.S.A. [Reference.com] 41 NATO is a military mutual-defense pact signed in 1949 between nonSoviet European powers and the USA. 42 Operation Gladio is on the record as the Italian part of a “supraNATO” operation. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio 43 Bologna bombing see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_4532000 /4532091.stm Aldo Moro assassination, which is always blamed on the Red Brigades, see: http://www.theboot.it/aldo_moro_op-ed.htm Read about Lemnitzer’s sinister career here: http://tinyurl.com/yojks2 45 Lance 2003, 278-280 & 303-4: Bibliography 46 Curtis, 81, Bibliography. 47 See Gaffney, Mark: The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Disappearance of America, 2008. 48 Silverstein’s extraordinary statement is discussed, for example, here: LINK http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
The BBC’s too-early report, for example, is discussed here: LINK http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html
Carl Boggs, New Politics Vol XI, No. 1. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
The outlaw U.S. President added: “It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated.” 53 The New Statesman reported on 06 Sept. 2004 that at least 200 Iraqi academics had been assassinated. A 2009 list names 431. (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Academics.htm) A similar program of comprehensive assassinations was carried out during the Vietnam war by the C.I.A. 54 LINK: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece 55 LINK http://www.connectedearth.com/Galleries/Telecommunicationsage/Thetelephone/Developingthetele phone/index.htm 56 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-111.pdf 57 And in the home we consider television essential too. 58 This sentence quotes Thomas Farely’s Digital Wireless Basics: LINK http://www.privateline.com/mt_digitalbasics/. 59 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm 60 http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/about/people/pavarobotti.htm 61 Raymond Kurweil gave the demonstration to the TED (Technology Entertainment Design) annual conference held in Monterey, California. 62 IMDB.com, entry for S1m0ne. 63 “During the second world war, there were almost no films made other than propaganda ones. The same happened during Vietnam.” The Guardian, London, August 14th, 2007. 64 Presence: December 2003, Vol. 12, No. 6, Pages 629-643. 65 LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm 66 CBS News --- NSA To Deny Bugging Diana's Phone: Official Tells CBS News Agency Had Files On Princess Because She Came Up In Others' Conversations, LONDON, Dec. 11, 2006. For Blix and Annan: see The Guardian, Blix: I was a target too, Chief UN weapons inspector believes he was bugged, Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor, February 28, 2004. 67 Long’s book was illustrated with pictures of quaint spy listening devices, such as a bugged olive, and a gun that fired a dart containing a microphone. He detailed the growing trend of electronic surveillance by government and industry in the 1960s. Also recounted in detail was the monitoring of the mails. Especially interesting were accounts of wiretapping by the Food and Drug Administration, which used electronic surveillance to gain evidence against those who were selling unapproved food additives, and the Internal Revenue Service, which used wiretaps in order to find unreported income. Long headed the US Senate's Subcommittee on the Invasion of Privacy. Long, Senator Edward V. The Intruders: The Invasion of Privacy by Government and Industry, with a Forward by Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey. Frederick A. Praeger, New York. 1966. 68 The Cray supercomputer company lists GCHQ Cheltenham UK as a member of its Cray XMT user group here: LINK http://www.cug.org/2-membership/membership_info/member_sites.php Canada’s Communications Security Establishment, described as a “professional and effective security and intelligence organization”, is also listed. 69 The NSA is not listed as a Cray user, but NSA phone monitoring resembles GCHQ’s. Read about the NSA’s call-monitoring here:
See endnote 34.
Ex-Qwest Chief Nacchio Claims U.S. `Retaliated' Against Company, By David Voreacos, Oct. 13, 2007. (Bloomberg)
Documents: Qwest was targeted. 'Classified info' was not allowed at ex-CEO's trial, by Sara Burnett & Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News, October 11th, 2007. LINK: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_571 9566,00.html 76 See note 34. 77 Quote from Amdocs’ website. 78 See: Oracle’s website, History Timeline, here: http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-may/p27anniv_timeline.pdf An outline of the US-VISIT project may be found in Illusions of Security by Maureen Webb (see Bibliog.). A US-VISIT plan overview is at the U.S. Consular website: LINK http://www.amcits.com/us-visit.asp. Note: The U.S.A. announced in October, 2007, that it required details of passengers flying over its area, and not just incoming. 80 Former CEO Says NSA Punished Phone Firm, By Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen, The Washington Post, 13 October 2007. NSA’s initiative, seven months before the events of 9/11 prompts the question: did the U.S. Government security apparatus already have suspicions about an impending plot? Such suspicions were later denied by the NSA boss at the time, Condoleeza Rice. 81 “The [Airfone] company deployed a nationwide, end-to-end digital system starting in 1993.” Verizon news release, Sept 27, 2001. 82 Able Danger, the code name for a a pilot data-mining project run in 1999 and 2000 under the auspices of the Army Special Operations Command and the Land Information Warfare Activity department under the Pentagon’s Intelligence and Security Command. For further details consult: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-37_97/3-chap.htm CIA Concludes Investigation of Inappropriate Use of Computer Systems, CIA press release, November 30, 2000. http://tinyurl.com/yw4vuf. 84 Pentagon and Hackers in 'Cyberwar,' by Jim Miklaszewski, News.com. Published on ZDNet News: Mar 5, 1999. U.S. defences were said to be “centered in two places inside the U.S. intelligence community. One is the Critical Technologies Branch of the CIA's Office of Science and Weapons Research. The other is the Infowar Support Center, also known as G42, at the National Security Agency. Both are involved in the American effort to have cyberweapons available to retaliate against an enemy who goes after U.S. systems or to use these weapons to disable enemy defenses in a war.” Hacking invasions go unnoticed, for example this from CNN: October 31st, 2008 Agency warns of possible passport breach WASHINGTON (CNN) — The State Department has notified almost 400 passport
83 79 75
applicants in the Washington, D.C. area that its database security had been breached, allowing a group of criminals to obtain private information and use it to acquire credit cards, the department said Friday. The scheme, involving both the State Department and Postal Service, was discovered by accident. The UK’s New Labour government, for example, has recorded some 277 major data losses since before 9/11. Here’s Mark Townsend of The Observer on November 2, 2008. “The government was embarrassed by another data-loss scandal last night when the private details of up to 12 million people were put at risk after a memory stick was found in a pub car park. A key Whitehall department was forced to shut down yesterday after the loss of the data emerged, and an investigation was under way into how the USB stick was misplaced by an IT expert outside a Brewers Fayre pub in Cannock, Staffordshire. The device contained confidential passcodes to the £18m online Government Gateway system, which covers everything from parking tickets to tax returns…Last week the Information Commissioner revealed the number of data breaches involving sensitive government records had risen to a total of 277.” 86 “"Intelink was started in 1994 with COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) products such as the Mosaic browser," said William Wall, previous security engineer at the Air Force Information Warfare Center and Air Intelligence Agency. "It was to be used only between the intelligence community -- the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA -- and since it's not had heavy use, it may well be obsolete now."” “Spalding said that work is underway to secure Intelink even further, and to develop new policies for its use. It still has not been established whether state and local agencies should be allowed to access the network and who will have complete or limited access to the information stored on Intelink. “Wall, now chief security engineer at Harris Corporation's STAT computer security division, said that GovNet does not have a well-defined mission. “"When I first heard about it, I was very curious whether it would replace current systems in place, such as Intelink, Siprnet and Niprnet, or supplement them. Siprnet is completely classified and completely encrypted." GovNet: What Is It Good For?, by Michelle Delio, Wired Magazine, 01.21.02. LINK: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/01/49858 87 State Security translates into German as Staats Sicherheit, or S.S. the infamous secret police of the Nazi dictatorship. The list of U.S. intel agencies is long. The Federation of American Scientists has the following list: United States Intelligence Community Director of National Intelligence National Intelligence Council [NIC] National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) National Counterintelligence Executive [NCIX] Central Intelligence Agency National Security Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis Defense Assistant to the Secretary for Intelligence Oversight Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration Defense Information Systems Agency Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Protective Service Defense Security Service US Special Operations Command Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Intelligence and Security Command Office of Naval Intelligence Naval Security Group Command Naval Criminal Investigative Service Marine Corps Air Force Technical Applications Center Air Intelligence Agency National Security Council President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Office of National Drug Control Policy Energy Department Office of Intelligence Justice Department Justice Intelligence Coordinating Council OIG - Office of the Inspector General OIPR - Office of Intelligence Policy and Review DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration NDIC - National Drug Intelligence Center USNCB - U.S. National Central Bureau State Department INR - Bureau of Intelligence & Research INL - Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs CT - Counterterrorism Office DS - Bureau of Diplomatic Security Treasury Department Office of Intelligence Support Office of the Under Secretary (Enforcement) FINCEN - Financial Crimes Enforcement FLETC - Federal Law Enforcement Training Center National Archives and Records Administration Information Security Oversight Office US Secret Service Presidential Campaign Puts Strain on Secret Service, CNN June 23, 2007 89 For example, remote-controlled aircraft were considered new in the 1990s, but the Pentagon had first deployed remote-controlled aircraft in 1944. See the death of Joseph Kennedy Jr. here: LINK http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/kennedy_story/kennedy_story01.html Reagan’s links to organised crime are outlined in Supermob, by Gus Russo (see: Bibliography). Emergence of an existing covert programme into the public arena was exemplified by the UK prime minister’s
announcement of a mass surveillance program in October 2008, e.g. this report from The Sunday Times, October 5, 2008, by David Leppard: Government will spy on every call and e-mail: Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain. GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project. Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers. LINK: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece Bill HR6304: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. LINK: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/show 92 AT&T snares billion-dollar DISN pact, By BOB BREWIN, Published on February 2, 1997, FCW.com. 93 Ibid. Other big corporations joined AT&T in the deal. They were: the GTE Corporation; Time Warner Communications, a unit of Time Warner Inc.; the Bell Atlantic Corporation; the Bellsouth Corporation; the Ameritech Corporation; Pacific Bell, a unit of the Pacific Telesis Group; Southwestern Bell, a unit of SBC Communications Inc., and U S West Communications, a unit of U S West Inc. Source: PENTAGON AWARDS $5 BILLION CONTRACT, NY Times, Published: January 30, 1997. A federal lawsuit filed by Internet privacy advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation. S.F. Reviewing Pact with AT&T, City weighs options on telecom's alleged ties to NSA spying, by Scott Lindlaw, The Associated Press, July 12th, 2006 95 A Story of Surveillance: Former Technician 'Turning In' AT&T Over NSA Program, by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, November 7th, 2007. With collaboration like this, it’s no wonder that AT&T works closely with the Pentagon by sponsoring “morale-boosting programs worldwide” and contributing to more than 2,500 military events such as the Army-Navy football game, Marine Corps athletic competitions -- including the Marine Corps Marathon -- the Air Force Tops in Blue talent show, and the Army Soldier Show. The 9/11 Commission Report, P. 9. Revealed in Called, by Lisa Jefferson, see Bibliography. 98 Thursday, September 13, 2001, Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom in Las Vegas, By NATALIE PATTON, REVIEW-JOURNAL. 99 Zarembka, Paul, (Ed.), The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Elsevier 2006. 100 “In the back of the [Flight 93] plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.” Prosecutors play Flight 93 cockpit recording, By GREG GORDON, McClatchy Newspapers, April 12, 2006, (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service).
97 96 94 91
The 9/11 Commission Report, P. 33. Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones, David Ray Griffin & Bob Balsamo, published online at Pilots for 9/11 Truth on 6/26/07. 103 Nearly all members of the so-called Supermob, the power-brokers with gangster connections who largely controlled the U.S.A. for about 50 years, were never brought to justice. See Russo, Bibliography. 104 See Note 87. 105 In a personal communication with the author, researcher Elias Davidsson of Iceland imparted the following information: Passenger lists anomalies discovered On Thursday, 12 September 2001, many newspapers printed partial passenger lists of the flights that crashed on 9/11. On all these reports Jude Larsson, 31, and his wife, Natalie, 24, were mentioned as passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 which reportedly crashed in the World Trade center. Here are two links still found accessible on the web: CBS, September 12, 2001: http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/national/main310935.shtml The Honolulu Star Bulletin, September 12, 2001: http://starbulletin.com/2001/09/12/news/story1.html Yet on September 18, 2001, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported that the newspaper had received an email from Jude, apparently alive, notifying of the mistake. Below is the continuation of the report from the Star Bulletin (source: http://starbulletin.com/2001/09/18/news/story5.html): “The newspaper called Curtis Larson [Jude’s father, a sculptor who lives in Hawai] late Sunday night, informed him about the e-mail, and provided him with the telephone number to reach his son...Larson said he spoke last night with his son Jude, who has been working temporarily in British Columbia to earn enough tuition money to return to study at the University of California at Los Angeles (...) Larson said after the terrorist attacks in New York, he received a telephone call last Tuesday morning from a woman who said she was his ex-wife informing him that their son and daughter-in-law had died in a passenger airline that hit the World Trade Center. He said three minutes after he hung up, he received a call from a person claiming to be with the airlines, also informing him of the tragedy. Larson said during the conversation, he was asked to disclose his Social Security number, date of birth and passport number to the caller. He said he thought at the time that his wife’s voice sounded strange but let it go because he hadn’t spoken to her in years. ‘They knew his name, his mother’s name,’ he said. ‘I’ve been hoaxed. I’m overjoyed he’s alive, and whatever somebody got from me, they’re welcome to it.’ (...)
Tweet Coleman, the Pacific area representative for the Federal Aviation Administration, said as of yesterday, neither United nor American Airlines has released the list of passengers on the hijacked flights to the news media. The news media often rely upon family members to confirm airline deaths. Larson’s son was unavailable for comment.” The names of Jue and Natalie Larson disappeared later from publicized passenger lists. There has been no explanation how these names emerged in mass media on September 12, 2001, as passengers of AA11. The fact that many mass media printed these wrong names indicates the existence of a single source for these initial partial lists. It has never been revealed who was the source of these partial lists. 106 Video sequences of Atta released in 2005 showed a personable young man of light complexion who contrasted sharply with the grim, swarthilycomplected middle-aged monster always shown after the 9/11 events. 107 A part of the sprawling Time-Warner media conglomerate. 108 http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html 109 “He initially caroused and smoked hashish,” writes Steve Coll in Ghost Wars (Penguin, 2004). New video of the pair supposedly preparing their wills together somewhere is discredited here: LINK http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/October2006/031006faketerror.ht m
“As the FBI's investigation has developed, Atta's shrouded pattern of activity has emerged. He was in almost constant movement in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. On Aug. 6 Atta rented the first of three cars and drove 3,204 miles. In a final automobile trip, which ended Sept. 9, Atta logged more than 1,000 miles. He was one of 13 suspected terrorists who received Florida driver's licenses since May 1.” Atta's trail of terror passed through Las Vegas, COLUMN: John L. Smith, Thursday, September 20, 2001, Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal. 111 A quotation from an April 19th, 2002 speech by Mueller, transcribed on the F.B.I. web-site here: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 1, 451; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 4 113 The ostensible absence of security cameras at Boston Logan airport might be attributable to the security company Huntleigh, which was a contractor at the time. Huntleigh had suspicious connections to foreign intelligence, viz.: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/302. 114 http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html. 115 The security stream (CAPPS) was designed to hold suspicious passengers’ luggage until they had definitely boarded their aircraft, at which point it would be released for last-minute loading. That the luggage attributed to Atta remained at the airport was a strong indication that he never boarded and the luggage was planted in order to incriminate him. The luggage reportedly included numerous documents, including a letter of recommendation and education-related documents, a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, airline uniforms, an Arabic suicide attacker’s handbook couched in Islamic rhetoric, and the owner’s last will and testament. (I give further details of the Atta baggage scam in my book Flight 93 Revealed.)
David Ray Griffin presents in 9/11 Contradictions a persuasive, detailed argument that Atta’s visit to Portland ME never happened, and was invented several days after the events.
The Kennedy killing cover-up involved multiple suspicious deaths, see Marrs (bibliography)/ 118 9/11 Commission Report P.1-2. 119 Indeed, there is documentary evidence in National Transportation Safety Board records that raises doubts about whether Flight 11 or Flight 175 ever took off from Boston Logan. Take off airport for Flight 11 (N334AA) is not given in the NTSB’s records here (See P.3): http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA060&rpt=fa Take off airport for Flight 175 is given as 1MA3, or Boston Heliport, not Boston Logan, here (see P.3): http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa Also, the plane named as Flight 175 was not deregistered until 09/28/2005, see here: http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html
Gatekeeper Cockburn Attacks 9/11 “Conspiracy Nuts”, by Kurt Nimmo, adereview.com, September 08th 2006, 9:27 am. 121 David Ray Griffin suspects the Lechner affidavit of being a forgery, chiefly because of the confusion about what car Atta actually rented, if any. 122 The affidavit can still be found on Australian ABC-TV’s website here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit9.ht m
A 2007 FCC memorandum reiterates this reason in Clause 2. LINK: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-47A1.pdf
E-mail to the author, 3 Oct., 2007. E-mail to the author, 10 Oct., 2007 126 Over & out: Hidden 9/11 tapes reveal airlines failed to alert pilots, By GAIL SHEEHY, JULY 8, 2004, Colorado Springs Independent online edition.
For example this from the NY Observer: “’Amy, this is Michael Woodward.’ The American Airlines flight service manager had been friends with Sweeney for a decade, so he didnt have to waste any time verifying that this wasn't a hoax. ‘Michael, this plane has been hijacked,’ Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well. Mr. Woodward ordered a colleague to punch up those seat locations on the computer. At least 20 minutes before the plane crashed, the airline had the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit cards of three of the five hijackers. They knew that 9G was Abdulaziz al-Omari, 10B was Satam al-Suqami, and 9D was Mohamed Atta -- the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists.” But as the U.S. court evidence shows, Atta was listed in seat 8D, not 9D. (See Atta evidence file on P.xx; extract from Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show, by Gail Sheehy, 16 February 2004, The New York Observer.) Also this: the Boston Globe reported ONG (not Sweeney) as having said the wounded passenger was in 10B. Ref.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstructi on.htm The same article also said: “A flight attendant's body was found at one of the crash scenes with thin wire bound tightly near her manicured hand.”
Flight 11 attendant reported events prior to crash September 20, 2001 Posted: 3:20 PM EDT (1920 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN). 129 The right-wing Scaife-funded website WorldNet reported that Flight 11 would be Flight 12 when returning from Los Angeles, but we know that AA had another Flight 12 waiting to depart from Logan. This could have meant two Flight 12s in the air at the same time. See: Terrorists slit throats of 2 AA stewardesses; Flight attendants 'were trying to stop them from getting inside the cockpit', September 11, 2001, 8:30 p.m. EDT, By Paul Sperry, © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com. 130 9/11 Commission Report, Note 32 P. 453. 131 In his new edition of The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin has this paragraph: “The FBI document about Sweeney’s call said---according to Eric Lichtblau in the Los Angeles Times one week after 9/11---that while she was relating details about the hijackers, they stormed the front of the plane and “had just gained access to the cockpit.” According to the 9/11 Commission, however, the hijacking of Flight 11 “began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter” but Sweeney’s call did not go through until 8:25. The FBI report, therefore, portrayed her as describing the hijacking as beginning at least eleven minutes after it, according to the Commission, had been successfully carried out.” 132 If Ms. Ong somehow used a seatback phone, in addition to identifying herself by giving her name and the (wrong) flight number over the telephone, but also digitally, by swiping her credit card through the magnetic reader slot on the handset, an action that would be easily verifiable by consulting the telephone-transmitted data that would be available on the AT&T Claircom OSS, or retrievable from the credit card supplier’s database. The U.S. government’s evidence fails to reference her credit card data, although it did supply such data, for example, in the case of Mohamed Atta’s Nissan car rental, which was supposedly supplied to investigators by a branch office of Alamo car rentals,132 simply by consulting its networked database. In this regard, the prosecution’s claim of Ong having made a call from on board Flight 11 lacks credibility. 133 Available here: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/911/ong.html or at the website set up by the U.S. court. Link: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution /flights/P200018.html
“Within a few weeks of September 11th, shares in Lockheed Martin, the second largest US arms company, rose by more than 30 per cent, shares in BAE systems rose by 7 per cent, Northrop Grumman by 32 per cent and Raytheon by 40 per cent.” (Curtis, 85: Bibliography). The biggest military spending increases in 20 years ensued. 135 It’s not quite clear in the sources whether the Nydia Gonzalez recording occurred right after the Ong recording “This is Nydia” or towards the end of Ong’s call “We’ve lost her.” However, the following exchange is in the recording:
Nydia(to Betty): Is there a doctor on board, Betty, that’s assisting you guys? You don’t have any doctors on board. Okay. So you’ve gotten all the first class passengers out of first class? Chris (another AA employee): Have they taken anyone out of first class? Nydia: Yeah, she’s just saying that they have. They’re in coach. LINK http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it will end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal. (From: Wikipedia.) 137 Although cabin air is reconditioned and mixed 50/50 with outside air. On a Boeing 767, “[a]pproximately 20 cubic feet per minute of air per passenger is provided, of which half is filtered recirculated air and half is outside air. This results in a complete cabin air exchange every two to three minutes(20 to 30 air changes per hour)”. The Aiplane Cabin Environment by Elwood Hunt & David Space. LINK: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ventilation.pdf
The penetrability of the cockpit door of Flight 11 (and the other flights) has been the subject of extensive debate. Debunkers say it might have been left open; or universal keys might have been available, carried by cabin crew or stolen earlier by the hijackers. Sceptics point out that a stealth attack would have been signalled by screams from business class and overheard by pilots, or flight attendants would have alerted them by interphone, causing them to send a distress signal. They say Pilot Ogonowski, who was posthumously decorated for working radio controls after the alleged hijacking, had the opportunity to send an alert before it. 140 Lewin, American-born and raised in Israel, had been a member of secret Israeli armed forces. A brief biography here: LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_M._Lewin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1556096.stm 9/11 Commission Report Report P. 85. 143 The correspondence between the date of the staged terror event (9/11) and the North American emergency telephone number (9-1-1) would have been incomprehensible to Arabs in their own countries, who do not have such a number. However, the significance of the date would have been only too evident to Americans imagining such a false-flag attack. (The date also commemorates the date of the US-backed right-wing Pinochet coup in Chile.) 144 The FBI’s interview documentation, released under a Freedom Of Information Application, has a transcript that differs from the one
reported by the mass media. In it, the call recipients first mention Flight 12, not Ong. See the document on Intelwire.com here: http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/911COMM-Chapter-1-We-Have-Some-Planes04.PDF However, the media transcripts have Ong first saying she is on Flight 12. See here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls
Thanks go to my Air Canada cabin staffer friend who monitored the recording with me. 146 The U.S. court evidence states: Flight attendant Betty Ong calls American Airlines and speaks with AA Agent Winstron Sadler and Operations Agent Nydia E. Gonzalez. Amy Sweeney speaks with AA manager Michael Woodward. 147 Note that AA boss Don Carty was conveniently off the scene at this time, like key officials Ashcroft [in air to Milwaukee], Pentagon boss Shelton [in air to Europe], Secretary of State Powell [Peru], FEMA boss Allbaugh [Montana] and Bush 41 and 43 [in air from the White House and Florida respectively]. However, Carty could have authorised the cover-up by phone. 148 The cover-up could be construed as part of a pre-arranged hijacking exercise that was scheduled for September 11th, 2001. Managers in the know would wish to suppress hijacking reports that they believed were forged as part of a test of airline operations. 149 Gerard Arpey’s reported assertion that he did not hear of the Amy Sweeney call until much later, if true, would invalidate the supposed passing-on of the Sweeney voice’s call to AA head office. However, Arpey may have been distancing himself from the management’s cover-up of the reported hijacking, on the other hand the whole story could have been dreamed up in 2004. Arpey’s slighting of Amy Sweeney’s memory is mentioned in Gail Sheehy’s New York Observer article of June 20th, 2004, as follows: “Ms. Sweeney's name was cited only in passing at that earlier [January, 2004] hearing. And when the president and chief executive of American Airlines, Gerard Arpey, testified, he never mentioned Ms. Sweeney or the cache of information she had provided American Airlines officials so early in the unfolding disaster.” 150 New York Observer, 6/17/2004. 151 08:36 – 08:38 AM Craig Marquis, a manager at the American Airlines System Operations Control (SOC) in Fort Worth, Texas, initiates actions to “lockout” Flight 11. This procedure, as the 9/11 Commission later describes, “acknowledges an emergency on the flight and isolates information so that the case can be managed by top leadership at the airlines in a way that protects information from being altered or released, and also protects the identities of the passengers and crew.” Within two minutes, American Airlines has completed the lockout. Marquis realized Flight 11 was an emergency situation almost immediately after 8:21 a.m., when he began receiving details of flight attendant Betty Ong’s phone call from it [sic]. Since “lockout” is a standard procedure for airlines in safety and security incidents, it is unclear why he did not initiate it sooner. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 5; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 12-13 ]
The lockout appears to have had legal status, as indicated by Note 35 to the 9/11 Commission Report Chapter One which says “Also at this time
American Airlines completed its ‘lockout’ procedure for Flight 11, which restricted access to information about a hijacked flight in accordance with the Air Carrier Standard Security program. See FAA report,’Air Carrier Standard Security Program,’ May 2001, p. 110.” 153 http://www.sept112001.org/news_gail_addendum1.jsp. 154 Kean Commission report P. 37, emphasis added. 155 David Ray Griffin in his revised edition of The New Pearl Harbour (2008) writes: “The 9/11 Commission Report, besides using the first line, ‘We have some planes,’ for the title of its first chapter, stated that these transmissions came from ‘American 11.’ The Commission failed to inform its readers, however, that there was really no evidence that this had been the case. According to the FAA’s ‘Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events,’ each of these transmissions was ‘from an unknown origin.’ Bill Peacock, the FAA’s air traffic director, said: ‘We didn't know where the transmission came from.’ The idea that these transmissions came from American 11 was a pure inference. This inference would be justified only if we had independent evidence that hijackers had taken over American Flight 11, which we do not.” 156 See David Ray Griffin’s online paper, "Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories ", at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
Kean/Zelikow, 318. “After selecting a channel the phone then identifies itself on the reverse control path. The mobile sends its phone number, its electronic serial number, and its home system ID. Among other things, the cell site relays this information to the mobile telecommunications switching office. The MTSO, in turn, communicates with different databases, switching centers and software programs.” From Cellular Telephone Basics by Tom Farley & Mark van der Hoek. http://www.privateline.com/mt_cellbasics/ 159 Final Contact, Nov 1, 2001 12:00 PM, By Betsy Harter, Telephone Online. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/
The website 911research.wtc7.net writes: “There are accounts contradicting the official account of the [never found] black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org.” 161 To folo. 162 See Endnote 3. Airfone introduced in-flight phones in 1984 and seatback phones in 1987. 163 “The North Americn terrestrial system or NATS was introduced by Airfone in 1984. General Telephone and Electric (GTE) soon bought out the company. The aeronautical public correspondence of APC service breaks down into two divisions. The first is the ground or terrestrial based stem (TAPC). That's where aircraft placed telephone calls go directly to a ground station. The satellite-based division, which came much later, places calls to a satellite which then relays the transmission to a ground.” Verizon bought GTE Airfone in 2000.
station.http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/flash.h tml?path=13.1.r_28 164 BUSINESS WIRE, June 24, 1999. Archived on investor.verizon.com. Also: http://www.idictate.com/press_oakbrook.htm. In 2001 an Airfone news release described its customers as: “Airfone's airline partners include: Air Wisconsin Airlines; American Airlines; Continental Airlines; Delta Air Lines; Midwest Express Airlines; United Airlines; USAirways; AeroMexico; Air Canada; Air Nova; Bell Mobility; Mexicana Airlines; Air France, Alitalia; All Nippon Airways; British Airways; Cathay Pacific Airways; China Southern Airways; Crossair; Lufthansa; Thai Airways; Turkish Airlines; and Varig.” 165 http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_contactus.html
Claircom, based in Seattle, provides in-flight telephone systems and calling services for US planes and supplies equipment for international airlines. The company has service contracts with seven commercial airlines, including American and Northwest, as well as corporate customers. Claircom has about 250 employees and operates 160 ground stations as part of its US phone-service network. AT&T (T) owns the largest share of Claircom, while Rogers Cantel (RCN) owns a 10 percent stake. (Joanna Glasner, Wired Magazine, 12.23.98) 167 From History Commons.org: Throughout the day of 9/11 and after,
members of the public in New York City experience significant communications problems, particularly with cell phones. “In the aftermath [of the attacks], and for several days afterwards, cellular phone services were either not working or were severely overloaded.” [SATNEWS, 10/19/2001] As Time magazine reports, “Lines formed, at least 20 people long, at all pay phones, because cell phones were not working.” [TIME, 9/14/2001] (Reportedly, though, the 911 system is not disrupted.) Later accounts will suggest that an increased volume of phone calls being made in response to the attacks may have overloaded networks. Within minutes of the first attack, according to the New York Times, there were “tens of millions of [phone] calls—many from worried relatives and friends—that threatened to clog the system.” [Emphasis added.] [NEW YORK TIMES, 9/20/2001] The call volume of Verizon Communications, which has its main regional switching station across the street from the World Trade Center, reaches twice its normal daily rate of 115 million calls in New York City. “And although it remained operational, the wireless network experienced massive congestion that prevented most calls from getting through. During the peak of the chaos, Verizon experienced nearly 100 percent more traffic than normal on its nationwide wireless network.” [VERTON, 2003, PP.
We discount reports from WorldnetDaily.com. See endnote 165. From cooperativeresearch.org’s 9/11 timeline: “When Virginia Buckingham takes over as executive director of Massachusetts Port Authority in 1999, she is surprised at the lack of cameras at Logan, and orders them that year. Yet by 9/11, they still will not have been installed.” Source: [Boston Herald, 9/29/2001; Boston Globe, 9/30/2001] 170 Originally, Atta’s rental car (a White Mitsubishi) was found at Logan. But this story disappeared after the story changed, so that Atta drove the Blue Nissan to Portland (after it was discovered that the Bukharis, originally said to have driven it up, had not died on 9/11).
From cooperativeresearch.org’s 9/11 timeline: “Marwan Alshehhi’s rental car is discovered at Boston’s Logan Airport containing an Arabic language flight manual, a pass giving access to restricted areas at the airport, documents containing a name on the passenger list of one of the flights, and the names of other suspects. The name of the flight school where Atta and Alshehhi studied, Huffman Aviation, is also found in the car.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/2001] 172 The 9/11 Commission Report, P.7. 173 CNN 03/10/04 174 AFTER THE ATTACKS: UNITED FLIGHT 175; Second Plane to Strike World Trade Center Tower Took a Deliberate Path, By WILLIAM GLABERSON, The New York Times, Published: September 13, 2001. 175 Richi Jennings. LINK: http://www.ferris.com/2006/08/14/dont_trust_call/
Widespread cell phone attribution was officially abandoned in 2004. The 9/11 Commission’s “Staff Report, August 26, 2004” (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/staff-reportsept2005.pdf), indicates that only the only two calls from all four flights said to be cell phone calls were those from Felt and Lyles when Flight 93 was said to be at 5,000 feet. 177 From cooperativeresarch.com: Seismic time [New York Times, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; USA Today, 12/20/2001; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-10; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; USA Today, 9/2/2002; New York Times, 9/11/2002] According to the NIST report, the crash time is 9:02:59. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 38 ] According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the crash time is 9:03:11. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 8] 178 Both quotations from the 9/11 Commission Report, Pp. 9-10. 179 Former head of Pakistan’s ISI secret service, Hamil Gul, was quoted claiming US media blamed Osama Bin Laden within minutes: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators.” (UPI United Press International, Sep. 26, 2001). 180 http://www.sfgate.com/today/suspect.shtml
David Maraniss, “September 11, 2001,” Washington Post, 16 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15). 182 CNN (03/10/04). 183 “There is no mention of such calls in Congress' report of its investigation into the attacks,” CNN reported of the Hanson and Sweeney voices’ calls. LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/10/911.call/
Flight 175: As the World Watched, The Learning Channel, December 2005 Guy Smith, producer of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, We're all conspiracy theorists at heart, BBC on-line, February 16th, 2007. 186 Official releases reproduced here: http://www.deadmarsh1828.net/Memorium.html. 187 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/09/11/kings010911.html. The story is erroneously dated 2002.
Ace Bailey remembered fondly on fifth anniversary of 9/11, Jim Matheson, CanWest News Service; Edmonton Journal, Published: Monday, September 11, 2006. 189 February 19th, 2006. 190 One of the descriptions the movie’s director, Paul Greengrass, used. 191 They might have been on another continent. For example: “Like the Predator, the Reaper [remote-controlled aircraft] is launched, recovered and maintained at deployed locations in theatre, while being remotely operated by pilots and sensor operators 7,000 miles (11,300km) away, at the US Air Force's Creech airbase in Nevada USA.” LINK: http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2008/06/grim-future-for-reaper-crashedin.html 192 globalsecurity.org 193 Newsday, 9/10/02. 194 Washington Post 9/17/01.
195 LINK http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/globe_stories/090802_buckingham_1.h tm
However, David Ray Griffin (private communication) writes: “Controller Colin Scoggins at the FAA’s Boston Center told me that, whereas they could not get a report from American Airlines for hours as to what hit the North Tower, they learned from United immediately that 175 had hit the South Tower.” 197 Kean/Zelikow report: P. 39, emphasis added.
198 (Boston Globe 11/09/02)
http://adereview.com/blog/?p=65#more-65 Verizon website. 201 Pentagon website.) 202 "...I fear you speak upon the rack. Where men enforcèd do speak anything." Portia, Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 2. 203 “The upper atmosphere's role in Earth's climate remains to be determined.” NASA Earth Observatory website. 204 See for example the Wikipedia biography. LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
See the extra crater here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NxdHc-
rA0k. For the account of the crash see Jere Longman, Bibliography.
Flight 93 Revealed, by Rowland Morgan, Carroll & Graf, N.Y. 2005. Killtown’s 9/11 sceptical website has a detailed page with witness quotations: LINK http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/witnesses.html
In May, referring to the passenger revolt on hijacked Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, he said, "I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III." (The President was commenting on a Wall Street Journal essay by David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, and who called the act "our first successful counterattack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III.") LUIZA CH. SAVAGE, July 25, 2006, Macleans.Ca. 210 Jefferson co-authored with a fellow fundamentalist Christian who was an on-screen presenter at Chicago’s CBS affiliate. 211 Qwest boss Joseph Nacchio turned down the new government, bringing down upon himself and his company vindictive reprisals. See Note 138. 212 “Airfone will continue to provide telecommunications services on about 3,400 corporate and government planes.” Verizon to End Airline Telephone Service, By KEN BELSON, New York Times, June 24, 2006 213 "I had not had time to press the switch in my office that initiates the taping of a conversation" she writes, as if an Airfone operator's work-station did not also have a switch to record a distress call. Jefferson & Middlebrooks, Op. Cit. 214 Her book’s title, therefore, is misleading. 215 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept 22nd 2001. http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp 216 Google search of ‘operator Phyllis Johnson’ got two results, compared to 293 for ‘operator Lisa Jefferson’. 217 The word is Lisa Beamer’s, reporting her conversation with Jefferson. Beamer Op.Cit. P.200. 218 “Due to its high price tag, the Airfone service has never been popular. The service costs 69 cents per minute for Verizon Wireless customers, or 10 cents a minute for a $10 fee per month. But for people who are not Verizon Wireless subscribers, the prices are much higher. For domestic calls it costs $3.99 to connect the call and $4.99 for each additional minute. International calls require a connection fee of $5.99 and $5.99 for each minute of calling.” Source: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6087534.html 219 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200055, vaed.uscourts.gov, 220 Although hackers would find such data easy enough to insert from behind the scenes. 221 Beamer, L., Let’s Roll: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage; Tyndale House, 2002. 222 Lisa Beamer described Flight 93 as being “obliterated” when it ostensibly crashed. Jefferson includes a photograph of a wrecked Airfone, supposedly taken from the crash site. Obliteration would presumably cause the call at the Flight 93 end to be terminated, ending the call. However, the call is said to have stayed open for over an hour. 223 A name is usually the first thing operators ask for in an emergency, as in the recording of the Betty Ong call.223 224 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.33 225 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.54 226 The Airfone-related events that had preceded this incident since Jefferson had reported for work at 7:00AM were as follows: Between 08:52AM and 08:57AM, a flight attendant aboard United Flight 175 speed-dialled United three times, using an Airfone in Row 31 to report the second sky-jacking in recent American history.226 If Airfone’s speech
recognizer technology did not pick up this alert, United Airlines must have given Airfone Operations Surveillance Center the heads-up, because of the possibility of additional sensitive calls arising from the captured aircraft. 09:03AM: A second hijacked airliner, allegedly United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston (but this was not determined until hours later), crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center and exploded. Both buildings were now on fire. If Airfone operations surveillance center did not see this on television, they would have lagged behind millions of Americans who did, and behind Mr. Jefferson, who watched it on TV in his office upstairs. Jefferson said her husband had “a standing-room only crowd”. Between 09:15AM and 09:30AM, Barbara Olson, supposedly aboard Flight 77 when it was officially lost, allegedly had twice got Airfone operators’s help with putting through a collect call to the Department of Justice. Jefferson never mentioned running next door about such a call, principally because it never happened, as confirmed by U.S. government evidence presented in court. 09:17AM: The Federal Aviation Administration shut down all New York City area airports. Again, it would have been unlikely that the Airfone’s Operations Surveillance Center, bristling with telecoms equipment, would not have been standing-room only, like Mr Jefferson’s office upstairs. 09:21AM: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ordered all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed. Again, something Airfone Operations Surveillance Center would need to know about, for its corporate, military and government clients. 09:26AM-09:45AM: The FAA halted all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide had been halted. It involved grounding 4,452 aircraft, many landing in Canada. United and the FAA necessarily would have had to inform Airfone, particularly in view of the security issue with Airfone’s government and military jet customers.226 09:30AM: United Airlines ordered all its aircraft to land immediately. (American did likewise five minutes later.)226 Naturally, Airfone would have needed to know. 09:30AM: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, announced that the country had suffered an "apparent terrorist attack" --- not an alert that Airfone Operations Surveillance, with all its high-level government customers, would miss. 09:30:32AM: According to U.S. government evidence presented in court, Thomas Burnett used a Verizon Airfone to call his wife reporting Flight 93 hijacked and instructing her to call the FBI, which she did. Speech recogniser technology at Airfone probably would have signalled such a call.
09:32:29AM: A flight attendant’s voice reached United Airlines from an Airfone on Flight 93, presumably reporting a hijacking (cited in U.S. government evidence). Again, Airfone speech recognisers would have picked out the word “hijack” in the call and given an alert. 09:35:40AM: A flight attendant’s voice again used a Flight 93 Airfone to report a hijacking to United. Airfone’s speech recognition equipment would have picked out “hijack”, and anyway United Airlines by now indubitably would have alerted Airfone. 227 Jefferson writes deludedly: “I remained at the office until 1p.m. That’s when the Bush White House and the U.S. military declared a nationwide ground halt at airports around the country.” Six years later, she’s still got her story wrong by over three hours. 228 See pictures of it here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN 229 “09:30 AM: After departing the Booker Elementary School, President Bush experiences problems trying to communicate with the White House. On his way to Air Force One, he is unable to get a secure phone line to Dick Cheney, and has to rely instead on using a borrowed cell phone. According to the CBC, even this cell phone doesn’t work.” From the 9/11 Timeline, citing: Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the Bush White House by Bill Sammon, P.38. 230 CNN broadcast a report on the E4-B’s presence, then withdrew it. See the report on this link: http://www.postchronicle.com/cgibin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=32&num=103433
Lisa Beamer noted during their conversation: “Feared being cut off. A miracle that his call stayed connected because of volume of calls.” Op. Cit. P.186. Limit on number of calls see Jefferson, Op. Cit. 232 Larry King Show transcript, Sept 11 2002 233 Larry King Signs CNN Accord Totaling $7 Million a Year, By BILL CARTER, New York Times, May 12, 1998. According to the March 18th, 2002, Fortune, his pay equalled $5.38 per viewer --- among the highest on earth. 234 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center 235 “By now the FBI was on another line, listening in, since part of GTE [Airfone]’s distress procedure is to notify them.” Beamer Op. Cit. P. 202. The FBI recorded Deena Burnett’s call from her husband that came in almost simultaneously. 236 Jefferson & Middlebrooks Jefferson & Middlebrooks P. 35 “A note was then handed to me by someone. The FBI want me to try to determine if the caller could figure out the nationality of the hijackers.” This implicitly confirms that FBI agents were monitoring the call. 237 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.xx 238 Beamer, Op. Cit.
Also note the familiar reference to the caller by forename, as if she knew him, and could identify him, while he supposedly addressed her as Mrs. Jefferson.
We know this, because later in Jefferson’s shift, the FBI interrogated her by telephone, asking how long she was on the phone with Beamer, itself a bizarre query, considering the Bureau had been monitoring the call ever since Operations Surveillance had alerted them. But Jefferson’s reply was, and six years later remains, vague --- "a ballpark guess...about fifteen minutes, that's what the media picked up". Picked up from --- er, Mrs. Jefferson, of course.
Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.29 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.35 243 Deena Burnett reported that in her husband’s third phone call from Flight 93, made at about the same time Jefferson’s caller phoned (09:44:23AM), he explicitly said that he didn’t believe the hijackers had a bomb and were just making it up. 244 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.36 245 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.36 246 Beamer Op. Cit. P. 200. 247 The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the main investigator of Flight 93, reported on 9/19/01 that the call had been recorded. 248 Beamer op. cit. P. 213 249 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.65 250 Solicitor-General Ted Olson said his wife used the Airfone operator to place collect calls. He told the F.B.I. that he wasn’t sure whether it was cell or seatback. He then told the media both versions in sequence. The Moussaoui evidence has one call occurring at 9:18:58AM and never connecting, the 9/11 Commission provides four others to an “unknown number” between 09:15AM and 09:30AM. 251 CNN’s transcript of Larry King’s Sept. 17th interview with Ted Olson includes a video clip from ABC News on September 11th: “PETER JENNINGS, ABC NEWS: And I said a short while ago that we'd only actually publicly identified one person, one individual who died today, and that was the wife of the solicitor general of the United States, Barbara Olson -I've got her first name right, I think, Barbara Olson -- who was on the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon and was able to communicate with her husband, to whom we obviously extend our deepest -- just everybody who knows him must be thinking about his tragedy tonight.” 252 The F.B.I. conducted another inexplicable delay over announcing the discovery of the Nissan Altima at Portland Jetport that the Bureau attributed to Mohamed Atta. Even though Special Agent Lechner applied to Judge David Cohen on the morning of September 12th to search the vehicle as Atta’s, it was attributed in the news for several days to the Bukhari brothers, who also featured on the original list of hijackers. Atta was originally said to have rented a white Mitsubishi.
The government initially took the position of claiming that it didn’t know if the plane had been shot down: “Federal investigators said on Thursday they could not rule out the possibility that a United Airlines jetliner that crashed in rural Pennsylvania during this week’s attacks on New York and the Pentagon was shot down. ‘We have not ruled out that,’ FBI agent Bill Crowley told a news conference when asked about reports that a U.S. fighter jet may have fired on the hijacked Boeing 757. ‘We haven’t ruled out anything yet.’” (“FBI Does Not Rule Out Shootdown of Pennsylvania Plane,” Reuters, September 13, 2001) 254 “FBI agent Wells Morrison wouldn't confirm that the plane was hijacked, but said the FBI was reviewing the tape of the 911 call.” From: 'We are being hijacked!' passenger calls just before crash, By Todd Spangler, Associated Press, Wednesday, September 12, 2001. 255 Jonathan D. Silver “NORAD Denies Military Shot Down Flight 93,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 14, 2001 256 “Responding to persistent rumors that have circulated around the nation, the North American Aerospace Defense Command disputed accounts yesterday that U.S. military aircraft shot down United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County.” Simultaneously, the FBI’s Crowley told news
organisations that “There was no military involvement here. I hope that ends that speculation.” (Jonathan D. Silver “NORAD Denies Military Shot Down Flight 93,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 14, 2001). 257 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.70 258 Oracle’s website includes a PDF history with the following: “Together they (Larry Ellison, Bob Minter & Ed Oates) founded the company that would become Oracle and developed the Oracle database, named after the CIA project the trio had worked on at the beginning of their association.” 259 “For a few years she was employed with Todd at Oracle as a telesales manager, directing a group of telesales people. ‘I loved working at Oracle and looked forward to going back into the business world someday when the children were older. We'll see.’" Lessons from September 11, Finding Hope Beyond The Ruins: An Interview with Lisa Beamer, by Ann Henderson Hart, Central Coast Evangelical Church website. 260 The propaganda movie, United 93, also named the Capitol as the target, when one of the hijackers placed a postcard showing the monument on the dashboard of the jetliner. There is no evidence that the Capitol was the target. A much more credible supposition is that Flight 93 was intended to strike the third WTC tower that collapsed, Building Seven. 261 Beamer Op. Cit. P.185 262 In addition to her millions of dollars in government compensation, Ms. Beamer reported also receiving a deluge of money from the deluded U.S. public. In October, 2007, she purchased a second home for $1.9m. 263 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.83 264 Lisa Beamer rapidly established an industry around her grief. According to a report published on 911researchers.com: “Todd Beamer's memorial service was held on 09/16/01 at the Princeton Alliance Church in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Todd Beamer's wife, Lisa Beamer, a grieving mother of two and four months pregnant with her third child, registers TODDBEAMER.ORG four days later on 09/20/01, incorporates The Todd M. Beamer Memorial Foundation eight days later on 9/24/01 and then registers the trademark "Let's Roll" ten days later on 9/26/01. Instead of acting like a wife and mother who should be experiencing untold grief and loss her behavior turns a catastrophic personal tragedy into a cold and calculating cheap publicity stunt. But then the U S government's 9/11 propaganda machine needed heroes as well as villains paraded through the media.” The website also showed evidence that Lisa Beamer purchased a second home for nearly $2m in October, 2007. LINK: http://www.911researchers.com/node/1137. 265 Lisa Beamer says “Following the [Lord’s] prayer, Todd recited the 23rd psalm.” (Beamer op. cit. P.213). Strangely, Jefferson forgot about this religious experience. Beamer seems to know more about the timing. "Todd said they were turning in circles at 9.46AM," Beamer wrote in her book, although Jefferson mentions no such time in her book, and was probably in the Surveillance Center about then, according to her current story. Nor did Jefferson know when the call started, so giving a time during the call was unlikely. Also, the “circles” do not appear on the published maps of the flight’s final route. 266 http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp 267 Jefferson & Middlebrooks P.77 268 On the Larry King Show, CNN, Sept. 11th, 2002. 269 An ostensible FBI document has been produced that shows the calls made on Todd Beamer’s cell-phone on the day of the events. It shows nine one-minute calls made to Woodbridge, New Jersey between 11:07 and 16:02. The interesting aspect of the document is how anyone got possession of
Beamer’s cell-phone at 11:07, only an hour after the ostensible crash of Flight 93, on which Beamer was supposed to have been a passenger. Police and rescue services were still assembling at the site at this time, and the Pentagon claimed that the plane buried itself deep in the ground when it crashed. 270 San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004 271 Chicago Tribune, 9/30/2001. 272 Longman, 2002, pp. 162 and 166. 273 Even 9/11 believers do not claim the Marion Britton cell phone call, e.g. http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Cell_phones. 274 Jere Longman: "Among the Heroes", Harper Collins, New York, NY, copyright 2002. P. 161. 275 Hero: How a Warwick woman helped thwart terrorists, by Beth Quinn, The Times Herald-Record, November 11, 2001. 276 Lisa Beamer, op.cit. P. 206. 277 The heroes of Flight 93: Interviews with family and friends detail the courage of everyday people, By Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan, and Steve Mills © Chicago Tribune. Reprinted on October 2, 2001 in The Seattle Times. 278 The second call, occurring 36 seconds later, would require a genuine caller to reswipe the credit card to activate the Airfone. 279 The Final Moments of United Flight 93, By Karen Breslau (with Mark Hosenball), Newsweek Web Exclusive, Updated: 11:09 a.m. ET Sept.22, 2001. 280 Larry King Live, February 18, 2006. 281 “Kathy Hoglan of Los Gatos, California says her nephew, Mark Bingham, 31, did not specifically mention a plan to tackle the hijackers in his cell phone call to her at 9:44 a.m. Eastern time. Bingham managed only to tell his aunt and mother, Alice Hoglan, that the plane had been hijacked and that he loved them before the phone ‘went dead,’ Kathy Hoglan said.” Charles Lane and John Mintz, “Bid to Thwart Hijackers May Have Led to Pa. Crash,” Washington Post, 13 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11). The Mark Bingham voice’s unlikely opening line, as retold by his mother: “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham” sounds like a blunder by an uncertain teleoperator, one who later abandoned the call abruptly. However, there is a chance that a nuance intended by the mother got lost or distorted in the news reports. 282 From the transcript of an undated interview with BBC Newsnight host Kirsty Walk. LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1726647.stm
December 6, 2001, WTAE:TV, The Pittsburgh Channel.com. LINK http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail.html
Pittsburg Live (09/08/02) The evidence states: Passenger Edward Felt, using his cell phone, (732) 241-XXXX, contacts John Shaw, a 911 Operator from Westmoreland County, PA. 287 From Co-operative Research’s 9/11 Timeline: 9:58 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ed Felt Said to Describe Explosion and White Smoke from Bathroom Call A man dials emergency 9-1-1 from a bathroom on the plane, crying, “We’re being hijacked, We’re being hijacked!” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001] The
operator reports, “He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him.” [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/11/2001; Associated Press, 9/12/2001] One minute after the call begins, the line goes dead. [Pittsburgh Channel, 12/6/2001] Investigators believe this was Edward Felt, the only passenger not accounted for on phone calls. He was sitting in first class, so he probably was in the bathroom near the front of the plane. At one point, he appears to have peeked out the bathroom door during the call. [Longman, 2002, pp. 193-194, 196] The mentions of smoke and explosions on the recording of his call are now denied. [Longman, 2002, pp. 264] The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media. [Mirror, 9/12/2002]
288 289 290
Pittsburg Post-Gazette ,10/28/01
Available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiX7mNV4ab0 A sceptical interpretation of the call is on video here:
See this video clip of Lorne Lyles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1plf2M The interview appeared on the 2006 documentary DVD, Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. In it Lorne Lyles, a police officer in Florida, described how, at around 9:51 a.m. on September 11, he received a call from his wife, CeeCee Lyles, who was a flight attendant on United 93. She told him her plane had been hijacked and that she and some others were getting ready to "go to the cockpit." Lorne described that, after the call got disconnected: "I looked at the caller ID, and noticed that it was a call, and it was from her cell phone. And I'm like, OK, wait a minute. How can she call me from on the plane from a cell phone, because cell phones don't work on a plane? That's what I'm thinking." (http :// sho es tri n g911 .bl ogs pot .c om /200 8/0 4/h usb an d- of-f lig ht93-a tte nda nt- ce ll .htm l). (Tha nks to Da vi d Ray Gri ffi n f or t his ref ere nce .)
"CeeCee Lyles, 33, of Fort Myers, Fla., had perhaps the most unusual resume among the flight crew. She'd been a police officer and detective for six years in Fort Pierce, Fla. In late 2000, she left that job to pursue her lifetime dream: to be a flight attendant. In Fort Myers, Fla., Lorne Lyles didn't hear the phone ringing. He'd worked the night shift and had lain down to sleep at 7:30. At 9:47 a.m., the answering machine picked up a call from his wife, CeeCee, stranded in the back of the airplane. When the tape was played back hours later, CeeCee Lyles could be heard praying for her family, for herself, for the souls of the men who had hijacked her plane. From the back of Flight 93, CeeCee Lyles finally reached her husband, Lorne. "Babe, my plane's been hijacked," she said. "Huh? Stop joking," he said. "No babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them." The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack. "They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him. CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 28, 2001. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp 293 Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti), Fighting Back: Living Beyond Ourselves (Longwood, Florida: Advantage Inspirational Books, 2006), Page 61. 294 See FBI, “Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: phone call from hijacked flight),” 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11, 2001, Intelfiles.com, 14 March 2008 (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-sourcedocuments.html). Also she told reporter Greg Gordon the same thing a year later. See Greg Gordon, “Widow Tells of Poignant Last Calls,” Sacramento Bee, 11 September 2002 (http://holtz.org/Library/Social%20Science/History/Atomic%20Age/2000s/Se p11/Burnett%20widows%20story.htm).
Two Years Later...Deena Burnett And Her Girls Talk About Life After Sept. 11. LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Sept. 10, 2003, CBS News. 296 LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11 297 See Kerry Hall, “Flight Attendant Helped Fight Hijackers,” News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.), 21 September 2001. LINK http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm
The Hidden Persuaders (Paperback) by Vance Packard (Author), intro by Mark Crispin Miller, Ig books, NY 2007. Also: Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays (Author), Mark Crispin Miller, Ig Publishing, NY 2004. These classic books are good starting points from which to get up to speed.
Note that attacking rational analysis of the 9/11 events debunker David Corn has not impeded his career. He is currently Washington editor of The Nation, and a Fox News Channel contributor, who has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, LA Weekly, the Village Voice, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com and Alternet.org. Corn is everywhere, and you wonder if he files articles using his cell phone at cruising altitude. 300 LINK http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions _of_e_howard_hunt/print 301 American Tears by Naomi Wolf, October 12, 2007 by The Huffington Post
LINK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article _id=474364&in_page_id=1770 303 CBC Fifth Estate, November 2009. 304 E.g. an on-lne comment from one Nancy-Jo Sales: “If the conspiracy were true, by now someone would have come forward or been discovered by forensic investigators, unless of course the investigations into what brought down the Towers are part of the conspiracy.” She was commenting
on This Is Not Your Father's Conspiracy Theory, By Michael LopezCalderon, The American Thinker, December 03, 2006, 305 Cremation time for bodies incinerated at 1800 degrees is roughly an hour to an hour and a half. 306 LINK: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=347655064407137426&q=open+compli city 307 Kevin Barrett, Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.